The Ginn Group, Inc. (N6945021R0056)

B-420165,B-420165.2 Dec 22, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Ginn Group, Inc. (Ginn), a service-disabled, veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), of Peachtree City, Georgia, challenges the award of a contract to Government Contracting Resources, Inc. (GCR), an SDVOSB of Pinehurst, North Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6945021R0056, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command for base operations support (BOS) services. The protester asserts that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions, misevaluated proposals, and made an unreasonable 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:  The Ginn Group, Inc. File:  B-420165; B-420165.2 Date:  December 22, 2021 Nathan Hartland, Esq., Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, for the protester. Peter B. Ford, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Meghan F. Leemon, Esq., and Anna R. Wright, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for Government Contracting Resources, Inc., the intervenor. Robert G. Palmer, Esq., and Luke F. Killam, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protester’s allegation that during discussions the agency misleadingly encouraged it to increase staffing is denied where the agency raised concerns during discussions about the protester’s low labor hours and asked the protester to either revise its hours or provide additional support for its labor hours, and the protester made a business decision to increase labor hours. 2.  Protest that agency should have assigned protester’s proposal an additional strength reflects the protester’s disagreement with the agency’s evaluation judgment, and provides no basis for sustaining the protest. 3.  Agency’s selection of a lower-rated, lower-priced proposal for award is unobjectionable where the agency’s tradeoff decision was reasonable, and where the agency adequately documented its tradeoff rationale.  DECISION The Ginn Group, Inc. (Ginn), a service‑disabled, veteran‑owned small business (SDVOSB), of Peachtree City, Georgia, challenges the award of a contract to Government Contracting Resources, Inc. (GCR), an SDVOSB of Pinehurst, North Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6945021R0056, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command for base operations support (BOS) services.  The protester asserts that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions, misevaluated proposals, and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP consolidated contracts for BOS services at the Naval Support Activity (NSA) in Panama City, Florida, and the Navy Operational Support Center in Tallahassee, Florida.  Agency Report (AR), Ex. B, RFP at 13.[1]  The successful offeror will furnish all labor, materials, and other items necessary to provide facility management, facility investment, and custodial, pest control, integrated solid waste management (ISWM) services, including recycling, pools, grounds maintenance and landscaping, pavement clearance, and environmental services.  Id. The Navy issued the solicitation as an SDVOSB set-aside under Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) part 15, negotiated contracts.  Id.; AR, Ex. E, Pre‑Business Clearance Memo. at 6.[2]  The solicitation contemplated the award of indefinite-quantity contract for recurring services/fixed-price line items and non‑recurring/ indefinite‑delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) line items.  RFP at 13.  The RFP anticipated that the resulting contract would have a 12-month base period and seven 1-year option periods.  Id. at 28. The solicitation provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal presented the best value, considering the following factors: corporate experience, technical approach, safety, past performance, and price.[3]  Id. at 75.  Under the evaluation criteria, the corporate experience, technical approach, and safety factors,[4] when combined, were of equal importance to past performance.[5]  Id.  The four non‑price factors, when combined, were of equal importance to price.  Id. at 75‑76. Under the technical approach factor, the RFP provided that the agency would evaluate how well the offeror’s approach demonstrates adequate labor hours on an overall level, as well as for each technical specification, and whether the proposed approach demonstrates “a reasonable understanding of the requirements and labor quantities and skills needed to successfully perform.”  Id.