MartinFederal Consulting, LLC (W31P4Q-22-R-0042)

B-420626 May 11, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights MartinFederal Consulting, LLC, of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to Altus Engineering, LLC, by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W31P4Q-22-R-0042, for the performance of analytical and testing services supporting the Army's oil analysis program. Martin, the incumbent contractor, complains that award to Altus was improper because Altus lacks the requisite experience and intends to subcontract more than 50 percent of the contract requirements. Martin also asserts that the agency failed to properly consider an alleged organizational conflict of interest. We dismiss the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: MartinFederal Consulting, LLC File: B-420626 Date: May 11, 2022 Jerome S. Gabig, Esq., Richard J.R. Raleigh, Jr, Esq., Christopher L. Lockwood, Esq., Wilmer & Lee, P.A., for the protester. Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Eric A. Valle, Esq., and Patrick T. Rothwell, Esq., Piliero Mazza, for Altus Engineering, LLC, the intervenor. Debra J. Talley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protester’s speculation that awardee proposed to meet the solicitation’s experience requirements through a subcontractor fails to state a valid basis for protest where the solicitation permitted an offeror to demonstrate compliance with the solicitation’s requirements through proposed subcontractors. 2. Protester’s speculation that awardee will subcontract more than 50 percent of the contract requirements fails to state a valid basis for protest where the alleged subcontractor qualifies as a small business under the solicitation’s applicable North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code, and the solicitation’s limitation on subcontracting is inapplicable to such entities. 3. Protester’s assertion that workshops conducted by awardee’s alleged subcontractor created an organizational conflict of interest fails to state a valid basis for protest. DECISION MartinFederal Consulting, LLC, of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to Altus Engineering, LLC, by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W31P4Q-22-R-0042,[1] for the performance of analytical and testing services supporting the Army’s oil analysis program.[2] Martin, the incumbent contractor, complains that award to Altus was improper because Altus lacks the requisite experience and intends to subcontract more than 50 percent of the contract requirements. Martin also asserts that the agency failed to properly consider an alleged organizational conflict of interest. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND In July 2021, the agency issued the solicitation as a total small business set-aside,[3] seeking proposals to operate and maintain laboratories in designated locations throughout the world. RFP at 2. The solicitation provided for award on the basis of a best-value tradeoff between the following evaluation factors: technical,[4] staffing plan, and price.[5] Of relevance here, the solicitation provided that “The offeror shall have a minimum of 5 years work experience providing lubricant analysis services.” RFP at 50. The solicitation also provided that offerors could form teaming arrangements; stated that “[t]he offeror shall clearly describe its own capabilities and those specialized services or capabilities that will be provided by any subcontractor”; and added that the offeror “must demonstrate clearly that it can self-perform, or perform through its teaming or subcontractor arrangements.” Id. at 49, 51. Proposals were received from multiple offerors, including Martin and Altus.[6] Thereafter, the agency evaluated Martin’s and Altus’s proposals as follows:   Martin Altus Technical Marginal Good Staffing Plan Good Outstanding Price $15,281,163 $17,859,258   Protest exh. 1, Debriefing at 19. In assessing Martin’s proposal as marginal under the technical evaluation factor,[7] the agency identified two weaknesses and one significant weakness. Among other things, the agency concluded that Martin’s proposal “lack[ed] the level of detail required to ensure accuracy and standardization between operators.” Id. at 20.