AMD CM II, LLC (N6945022R0049)

B-420834.2 Nov 15, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AMD CM II, LLC, of Freehold, New Jersey, a small business, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. N6945022R0049, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for commercial grounds maintenance and landscaping services at Naval Air Station Kingsville, in Kleburg County, Texas, and Navy Auxiliary Landing Field Orange Grove, in Jim Wells County, Texas. AMD argues that the terms of the RFP exceed the agency's minimum needs and thus unduly restrict competition. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety. Decision Matter of: AMD CM II, LLC File: B-420834.2 Date: November 15, 2022 Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., John M. Mattox II, Esq., and Ian P. Patterson, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for the protester. Luke Killam, Esq., and Julia Fitzmaurice, Esq., Department of the Navy; and Alison Mueller Amann, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that solicitation terms included requirements for experience that exceeded the agency’s needs and unduly restricted competition is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably exercised its discretion to establish requirements to ensure successful performance of services that would affect human safety. DECISION AMD CM II, LLC, of Freehold, New Jersey, a small business, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. N6945022R0049, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for commercial grounds maintenance and landscaping services at Naval Air Station Kingsville, in Kleburg County, Texas, and Navy Auxiliary Landing Field Orange Grove, in Jim Wells County, Texas. AMD argues that the terms of the RFP exceed the agency’s minimum needs and thus unduly restrict competition. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued April 8, 2022, sought proposals from participants in the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) section 8(a) program[1] to provide services described in an accompanying performance work statement (PWS) for a base year and up to four option years. Among other things, the PWS requires the contractor to perform bird/animal aircraft strike hazard (BASH) services at the airfields. Attachment J to the RFP advised offerors that the level of required services in specific areas for BASH requirements and included a copy of the BASH wildlife hazard management plan document. RFP amend. 5, attach. J, at 44 (AR, Tab 17c); RFP amend. 5, exh. ”RFP BASH” (AR, Tab 17n). The accompanying sitemaps show that a majority of the areas would require BASH services. RFP amend. 5, attach. J site maps (AR, Tab 17L). The RFP provided for award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror that submitted the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal. Agency Report (AR), Tab 22, RFP amend. 5 at 14. Technical acceptability was to be evaluated under four factors: corporate experience, technical approach, safety, and past performance. AR, Tab 29, RFP amend. 12 at 9-11. Under the corporate experience and past performance factors, the RFP specified that the evaluation would consider relevant projects. The RFP definition of relevance was amended during the solicitation process (including during corrective action taken after an earlier protest by AMD). Ultimately, on August 9, the Navy issued amendment 12 to the RFP, which revised the relevance definition to provide, in part, as follows: a relevant project is defined as a grounds maintenance and landscaping services project similar in size, scope, and complexity to those described in the performance work statement/specifications of the RFP with a contract value of $750,000.00 per year or greater. . . . RFP amend. 12 at 9. The proposal instructions that followed required the submission of corporate experience in the form of “recent, relevant experience as a prime contractor on projects similar in size, scope, and complexity” to the PWS. The RFP also provided that an offeror could use experience of an affiliate or first-tier subcontractor that met the relevance criteria, but reiterated that projects “in any capacity other than a prime contractor will be considered not relevant.” Id. at 9-10.