Terra Klean Solutions, Inc. (W81K04-19-R-0031)

B-419838,B-419838.2 Aug 17, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Terra Klean Solutions, Inc. (Terra Klean), located in San Antonio, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Teya Enterprises, LLC (Teya), of Anchorage, Alaska, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W81K04-19-R-0031, which was issued by the Department of the Army, for healthcare environmental cleaning services. The protester challenges multiple aspects of the agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision. 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:  Terra Klean Solutions, Inc. File:  B-419838; B-419838.2 Date:   August 17, 2021 Derek R. Mullins, Esq., Demorest Law Firm, PLLC, for the protester. Andres M. Vera, Esq., and Edward T. DeLisle, Esq., Offit Kurman, P.A., for Teya Enterprises, LLC, the intervenor. Andrew J. Smith, Esq., Dana J. Chase, Esq., and Bruce L. Mayeaux, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency’s past performance evaluation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of price proposals is denied where the record demonstrates that the evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 3.  Protest is denied where the agency’s best-value tradeoff analysis reasonably considered the merits of competing proposals and was made in accordance with the terms of the solicitation.  DECISION Terra Klean Solutions, Inc. (Terra Klean), located in San Antonio, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Teya Enterprises, LLC (Teya), of Anchorage, Alaska, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W81K04-19-R-0031, which was issued by the Department of the Army, for healthcare environmental cleaning services.  The protester challenges multiple aspects of the agency’s evaluation of proposals and source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the RFP on October 11, 2019, under the commercial item acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, as an 8(a) small business[1] set-aside.  RFP at 1.[2]  The solicitation contemplated award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with fixed-price task orders issued for the required services for a 5-year ordering period.  Id. at 32.  The purpose of the procurement is to provide healthcare environmental cleaning and related services at the Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center (CRDAMC) in Fort Hood, Texas, and at multiple medical treatment facilities, as specified in the solicitation’s performance work statement (PWS).  See generally, PWS at 80-143.  The services required include the following types of healthcare environmental cleaning:  (1) type I services - surgery areas; (2) type II services - patient areas, isolation rooms, intensive care units, emergency rooms and nursery; (3) type III services - restrooms, locker rooms and showers; (4) type IV services - support areas, such as clinical support areas, exam rooms; (5) type V services -  administrative areas; and (6) type VI services - common areas, entrances, elevators, lobbies, waiting areas, dining facilities, fitness facilities.  Id. at 102-103.  Proposals were to be evaluated under the following factors:  (1) technical approach (evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis to determine technical acceptability); (2) past performance; and (3) price (evaluated using FAR part 15 price analysis techniques to determine reasonableness).  Id. at 203-206.  Past performance was stated to be slightly more important than price.  The solicitation provided for award on a past performance/price tradeoff basis among technically acceptable offerors; the RFP, therefore, provided that award could be made to a higher-priced offeror if the agency determined that the benefits of the offeror’s past performance outweighed the price difference.  Id. at 203.  For past performance, the RFP instructed offerors to submit up to three past performance references[3] and to complete and submit a customer reference information sheet (see, RFP attach. 6) for each reference.  Id. at 187.  Offerors also were to submit accompanying past performance narratives for each reference to demonstrate their capability to perform the types of cleaning services being solicited.  Id. at 188.  The RFP established that the agency would evaluate past performance submissions for recency, relevance, and quality of performance.  Id.