Operations Services, Inc. (SP3300-20-R-5005)

B-420226 Jan 04, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Operations Services, Inc. (OSI), an 8(a) small business of Fayetteville, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to Advanced Technology Logistics, Inc. (ATL), an 8(a) small business of Tyrone, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP3300-20-R-5005 issued by the Defense Logistics Agency for warehouse and logistics support services. The protester alleges the agency erred in permitting two offerors to propose the same subcontractor, and disparately evaluated past performance. 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:  Operations Services, Inc. File:  B-420226 Date:  January 4, 2022 Shomari B. Wade, Esq., Aaron M. Levin, Esq., Christopher M. O’Brien, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for the protester. J. Dale Gipson, Esq., Jon D. Levin, Esq., W. Brad English, Esq., Emily J. Chancey, Esq., Joshua B. Duvall, Esq., and Nicholas P. Greer, Esq., Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, for Advanced Technnology Logistics, Inc., the intervenor. Timothy J. Ryan, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging agency misevaluated proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Operations Services, Inc. (OSI), an 8(a) small business of Fayetteville, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to Advanced Technology Logistics, Inc. (ATL), an 8(a) small business of Tyrone, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP3300-20-R-5005 issued by the Defense Logistics Agency for warehouse and logistics support services.  The protester alleges the agency erred in permitting two offerors to propose the same subcontractor, and disparately evaluated past performance. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 3, 2020, the agency issued the RFP as a competitive 8(a) set-aside pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 19.8 seeking logistics support services at two DLA facilities in Portsmouth, Virginia.  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1.  The RFP contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a five-year ordering period.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP at 10.  The RFP provided award would be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff between the following five evaluation factors:  (1) performance confidence assessment; (2) management approach; (3) staffing approach; (4) transition and sustainment of operations approach; and (5) cost/price.  Id. at 76-77.  Of note, the RFP explained the performance confidence assessment was the most important evaluation factor, and that the four non-cost/price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price.  Id.  While the RFP indicated the agency reserved the right to make award without entering into discussions, the RFP also provided the agency could establish a competitive range and conduct discussions in accordance with FAR part 15.  Id. at 75. Relevant to this protest, the RFP explained that the performance confidence assessment would involve evaluating an offeror’s past performance for recency, relevance, and quality.  RFP at 78.  Specifically, the RFP provided the agency would first evaluate recency and relevance, and then assess quality for recent and relevant efforts.  Id.  Contracts performed within five years of the solicitation issuance date would be considered recent, and the agency would assess relevance by considering whether prior contracts were similar in scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity to the solicitation’s requirements.  Id. Finally, the RFP noted the government would consider past performance data for the offeror and any major subcontractors performing either 20 percent of the total dollar value or 25 percent of the total labor hours, but that major subcontractor past performance would be given weight relative to the percentage of effort being provided by that particular subcontractor.  RFP at 65-66.  Additionally, the RFP explained that major subcontractors must provide a signed commitment certifying that the parties commit to joint performance if the offeror receives the contract award.  Id. The agency received eight offers in response to the solicitation, including offers from the protester and intervenor.  AR, Tab 7, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 4.  The agency established a competitive range including five offerors, and conducted several rounds of discussions.  Id. at 4-5.  The agency received final proposal revisions from all five offerors in the competitive range, and on Sept.