BSI Inc. (W91QVN-21-R-0021)

B-420418 Mar 03, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights BSI Inc., of Hwaseong-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea (ROK), protests the evaluation of its proposal and exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91QVN-21-R-0021, issued by the Department of the Army for the maintenance and warehousing of war reserve materiel (WRM). BSI alleges that the agency's evaluation and competitive range exclusion were improper. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  BSI Inc. File:  B-420418 Date:  March 3, 2022 Hochun Song for the protester. Anuj Vohra, Esq., James G. Peyster, Esq., and Zachary H. Schroeder, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for PAE-Korea Limited, an intervenor. John C. Degnan, Esq., Lietenant Colonel  Abraham L. Young, and Andrew J. Smith, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging contracting agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal and exclusion of proposal from competitive range is denied where agency’s evaluation and competitive range determination were reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation evaluation criteria. DECISION BSI Inc., of Hwaseong-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea (ROK), protests the evaluation of its proposal and exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91QVN-21-R-0021, issued by the Department of the Army for the maintenance and warehousing of war reserve materiel (WRM).  BSI alleges that the agency’s evaluation and competitive range exclusion were improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on September 6, 2021, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 1; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2.  The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a 12-month base period with four 12-month options.  RFP at 2‑44; COS at 3.  The RFP established that contract award would be made on a lowest-price, technically-acceptable (LPTA) basis based on three evaluation factors:  technical, past performance, and price.  AR, Tab 3b, RFP amend. 1 at 11-13.  The technical factor consisted of four subfactors:  prime contractor’s prior experience (prior experience); key personnel; management approach; and phase-in plan.  Id. at 11-12.  Importantly, the RFP notified offerors that a rating of unacceptable in any factor or subfactor would result in an overall rating of unacceptable.  Id. at 11.  In general terms, the RFP’s performance work statement (PWS) required the contractor to provide all labor, management, supplies, and equipment necessary to maintain WRM, peacetime operating stocks, and in-use assets at specified air bases in the ROK.  AR, Tab 3a, PWS at 1. Relevant to the protest here, the PWS specified 13 functional areas (or types of equipment) upon which the maintenance and warehousing services were to be performed:  (1) vehicle maintenance; (2) aerospace ground equipment (AGE); (3) basic expeditionary airfield resources; (4) airfield damage repair; (5) aircraft racks, adapters, and pylons (RAP); (6) aircraft fuel tanks; (7) fire protection; (8) traffic management office; (9) medical; (10) chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear; (11) fuels; (12) supply; and (13) meals ready-to-eat.  PWS at 12, 75; COS at 14.  Further, under the prior experience subfactor, the RFP instructed offerors to provide evidence “of at least two (2) years’ experience within the last ten (10) years in logistical support and maintenance of similar types of equipment and services contained in the PWS.”  AR Tab 3c, RFP amend. 2 at 2.  Finally, the solicitation established that the agency would evaluate whether the offeror possessed the required experience within the stated time period.  RFP amend. 1 at 11. The protester was among the offerors that submitted proposals by the October 22 closing date for receipt of proposals.  BSI’s proposal included six prior experience references:  (1) a U.S.