Dust Busters Plus. LLC (140L0621R0005)

B-420096 Nov 23, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Dust Busters Plus, LLC, a small business of Eugene, Oregon, protests the decision of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management not to award it a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. 140L0621R0005, which the agency issued for firefighter crew services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal. In particular, the protester contends that the agency unreasonably determined that the protester failed to adequately address a deficiency in its proposal. 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: Dust Busters Plus, LLC File:  B-420096 Date:  November 23, 2021 Carol A. Thompson, Esq., The Federal Practice Group, for the protester. Kristen Davis for Rural/Metro Fire Dept., Inc., an intervenor. William B. Blake, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied where evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Dust Busters Plus, LLC, a small business of Eugene, Oregon, protests the decision of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management not to award it a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. 140L0621R0005, which the agency issued for firefighter crew services.  The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal.  In particular, the protester contends that the agency unreasonably determined that the protester failed to adequately address a deficiency in its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on March 25, 2021, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 1; AR, Tab 1, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3.  The solicitation sought firefighter crew services, such as fire suppression and management, “mop-up” activities, and “all-hazard incidents,” in six regions in Alaska.[1]  RFP at 4-7.  Offerors could propose on one or more regions. The RFP contemplated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts (one per region) with task orders to be issued on a fixed-price or time-and-materials basis.  Id. at 5.  The period of performance is from the date of award through March 31, 2022, with three 12-month option periods.  Id. at 32.  The RFP provided that proposals were to include a technical proposal; past performance information; and a price proposal.  Id. at 108.  The RFP anticipated award for each region on a best-value tradeoff basis using three evaluation factors:  technical proposal, past performance, and price.  The technical proposal factor was the most important; the past performance was the second most important; and when combined, the technical proposal and past performance factors were significantly more important than price.  Id. at 116.  The due date for proposals was April 26.  Id. at 3. The RFP provided for the evaluation under the technical proposal factor to consider three criteria:  technical capabilities, safety plan, and quality control plan.  Id. at 116.  For technical capabilities, the agency would evaluate how the offeror intended to meet the requirements in the statement of work (SOW).  Id. at 110.  Additionally, the RFP instructed offerors that the agency would evaluate their plan for hiring, issuing gear, assembling and transporting crew members to the incident, preparing food and water for transportation, and managing poor performance.  Id.  For the safety plan, the agency would evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the safety issues that would arise under the contract.  Id.  For the quality control plan, offerors were required to identify specific quality control procedures, describe their recordkeeping for self-inspection and preventative actions, discuss their plan to ensure crew members follow the quality control plan, and describe their plan for maintenance and replacement of various tools.  Id. at 111.  Proposals would receive an overall rating of “outstanding,” “good,” “acceptable,” “marginal,” or “unacceptable” under the technical evaluation factor.[2]  Id. at 116-117. Under the past performance factor, the agency would evaluate the recency and relevancy of the references submitted by the offeror.  Id. at 118.  The RFP defined “recent” past performance as efforts performed within the last five years; it also provided that the relevancy of past performance would be determined by comparing how closely related the submitted effort was to the services in the statement of work.  Id.