Aurora Industries, LLC (15A00021R00000007)

B-419448.4,B-419448.5 Nov 16, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Aurora Industries, LLC, of Virginia Beach, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Bering Global Solutions, LLC, (BGS), of Anchorage, Alaska, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15A00021R00000007, issued by the Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), to support the distribution and supply service center for ATF's Special Operations Division. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal and contends that the awardee may not be adhering to the RFP's limitations on subcontracting. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Aurora Industries, LLC File: B-419448.4; B-419448.5 Date: November 16, 2023 Ruth E. Ganister, Esq., Rosenthal and Ganister, LLC, for the protester. Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., The Martin Law Firm, PLLC, for Bering Global Solutions, LLC, the intervenor. Nathan E. Mires, Esq., and Robert J. Alley, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency unreasonably found proposal ineligible for award is denied where the evaluation was consistent with the solicitation and procurement law and regulation. 2. Protest that the agency unreasonably failed to conduct clarifications with the protester to rectify errors in the protester’s price proposal is denied where the proposal defects could not have been cured through clarifications. 3. Protester is not an interested party to challenge the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s technical proposal or the eligibility of the awardee’s proposal where the protester would not be in line for award even if its allegations were sustained. DECISION Aurora Industries, LLC, of Virginia Beach, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Bering Global Solutions, LLC, (BGS), of Anchorage, Alaska, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15A00021R00000007, issued by the Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), to support the distribution and supply service center for ATF’s Special Operations Division. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal and contends that the awardee may not be adhering to the RFP’s limitations on subcontracting. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, set aside for 8(a)[1] small businesses, sought proposals for the award of a single fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for a distribution and supply service center. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3(a) RFP amend. 11[2] at 1. Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical/managerial approach; price; key personnel; past performance; and transition plan. AR, Tab 2(d), RFP Section M at 1-2. The technical/managerial approach factor had four equally weighted subfactors: management plan; products; software deliverables; and software presentation. Id. at 2. The contract was for a 1-year base period and four 1-year options. RFP at 5. The RFP included a pricing spreadsheet, which listed numerous items of clothing, firearms accessories, body armor, and medical, safety, and measuring equipment. See AR, Tab 1(h), RFP attach. B, Pricing Chart. The pricing chart contained tabs for the base year and option years one through four; offerors were to provide a price for each listed item and a total price for each year of performance. Id. The RFP prohibited adding or deleting cells from the pricing chart. See AR, Tab 2(b), RFP Section L at 10 (noting that “[c]ontractors will not add or delete cells or make format changes to the Attachment B Excel spreadsheet”). The RFP advised offerors that “Price, will be based solely on the all-inclusive pricing that is submitted on Attachment B of this solicitation.” AR, Tab 2(d), RFP Section M at 9. The RFP further advised offerors: “NOTE: Attachment B pricing is based on one (1) each per item per year for the order under the resulting IDIQ Contract, the one (1) each per item per year is provided for purposes of price evaluation only.” Id. The RFP provided the current number of agency personnel by labor category to assist offerors in estimating the agency’s ordering quantities. Id. The RFP required offerors, in accordance with the requirements of FAR clause 52.219‑14, Limitations on Subcontracting, to certify the level of subcontracting proposed. Id. at 34. ATF received proposals from five offerors, including Aurora--the incumbent--and BGS. AR, Tab 10, Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 5.