T&H Services, LLC (W9124P-20-R-0007)

B-420458.7,B-420458.8,B-420458.9 Jan 10, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights T&H Services, LLC, a small business of Juneau, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to Akima Facilities Operations LLC, a small business of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124P-20-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Army for installation support services to tenants and organizations located at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. T&H challenges the agency's conduct of discussions, and the agency's evaluation of proposals under the technical approach and cost/price factors. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: T&H Services, LLC File: B-420458.7; B-420458.8; B-420458.9 Date: January 10, 2024 Ryan C. Bradel, Esq., Michael E. Hatch, Esq., and Nicholas L. Perry, Esq., Ward & Berry, PLLC, for the protester. Adam A. Bartolanzo, Esq., Alfred M. Wurglitz, Esq., C. Peter Dungan, Esq., and Lauren S. Fleming, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for Akima Facilities Operations, LLC the intervenor. Kelly R. Masters, Esq., and Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest arguing that agency conducted misleading discussions is denied where discussions were meaningful, led the protester into the general areas of its proposal requiring amplification or revision, and did not mislead the protester into responding in a manner that did not address the agency’s actual concerns. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation under the technical suitability subfactor is dismissed as untimely where the protest was filed more than ten days after the basis of protest was known or should have been known. 3. Protest challenging the sufficiency of the agency’s price reasonableness evaluation is denied where the evaluation was based on a comparison of proposed pricing to the independent government estimate. 4. Protester is not an interested party to challenge other aspects of the evaluation where its proposal was reasonably evaluated as ineligible for award. DECISION T&H Services, LLC, a small business of Juneau, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to Akima Facilities Operations LLC, a small business of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124P‑20‑R‑0007, issued by the Department of the Army for installation support services to tenants and organizations located at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. T&H challenges the agency’s conduct of discussions, and the agency’s evaluation of proposals under the technical approach and cost/price factors. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 31, 2020, the Army issued the RFP as a competitive 8(a) set-aside pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 19.8 to provide installation support services, including facilities maintenance, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning service, landfill operations, pavement clearance operations, environmental services, supply operations, facilities engineering services and preventative maintenance to tenants and organizations at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, Initial RFP at 2. The RFP contemplated the award of a contract with fixed-price, cost, cost-plus-fixed-fee, and cost-plus-fixed-fee level-of-effort line items with a 2-month transition-in period, a 1-year base period, and nine 1-year options. AR, Tab 46, RFP amend. 0009 at 3‑133; AR, Tab 47, RFP amend. 0009, attach. 16, Sections L & M at 10.[1] The RFP provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following evaluation factors: (1) specialized experience; (2) technical approach; and (3) cost/price. RFP at 17. The solicitation established a two-phase process for award in accordance with the procedures of FAR part 15 governing contracting by negotiation. Id. In phase 1, the agency would evaluate proposals under the specialized experience factor and only proposals assessed a rating of “high confidence” would move forward to the second phase. Id. In phase 2, the agency would evaluate proposals under the technical approach and cost/price factors, then conduct a best-value tradeoff of proposals based only on the phase 2 factors. Id. The RFP provided that the technical approach factor was significantly more important than cost/price. Id. The agency was to evaluate proposals under the technical approach factor considering three subfactors: (1) technical suitability; (2) preventative maintenance capability; and, (3) management capability. Id. at 19‑23. For each subfactor, the agency was to evaluate the adequacy of each offerors’ response, which the RFP defined as “whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP.” Id. at 19.