Teya Enterprises, LLC (W81K04-21-R-0004)

B-420907 Oct 24, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Teya Entrerprises, LLC, a small business of Anchorage, Alaska, challenges the award of a contract to Main Building Maintenance, Inc. (MBM), a small business of San Antonio, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W81K04-21-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army for healthcare environmental cleaning and related services. Teya challenges the agency's evaluation of the awardee's proposal. 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: Teya Enterprises, LLC File: B-420907 Date: October 24, 2022 Edward T. DeLisle, Esq., and Andrés M. Vera, Esq., Offit Kurman, P.C., for the protester. Major James S. Kim, and Michael McDermott, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal is denied because the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Teya Entrerprises, LLC, a small business of Anchorage, Alaska, challenges the award of a contract to Main Building Maintenance, Inc. (MBM), a small business of San Antonio, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W81K04-21-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army for healthcare environmental cleaning and related services. Teya challenges the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On October 15, 2021, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, the agency issued the solicitation as a total small business set-aside. Agency Report (AR), Tab 11, RFP at 1.[1] The solicitation sought proposals for the provision of “healthcare environmental cleaning and related services” at William Beaumont Army Medical Center, Fort Bliss, Texas and a few dozen other related medical treatment facilities in Texas and New Mexico totaling 1,367,990 square feet. Id. at 73-74. In providing the cleaning services, the solicitation advised that the contractor will be required to “prioritize infection control while optimizing cleaning practices” to support the agency’s “mission of providing quality healthcare in safe, hygienic, and aesthetically-pleasing” facilities. Id. at 74. The solicitation contemplated award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract under which fixed-price task orders will be issued during a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. RFP at 30. The solicitation established that the minimum guarantee under the resulting IDIQ contract will be $1,500 while the maximum value of orders placed during the 5-year ordering period cannot exceed $86 million. Id. The solicitation provided that award would be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis, taking into consideration offerors’ proposed technical approaches, past performance, and price. Id. at 216-217. The agency received 13 initial proposals, after review of which it established a competitive range consisting of four offerors, including Teya and MBM. AR, Tab 45, Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 4, 7-8. Based on final proposal revisions, the evaluators assessed Teya’s and MBM’s proposals as follows:   Teya MBM Technical Approach Acceptable Acceptable Past Performance Acceptable Acceptable Price $51,793,512.50 $41,858,003.47   Id. at 8. Based on the evaluations and a consideration of proposals, the contracting officer selected for award MBM’s lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal. Id. at 12. After receiving notice of award decision and a debriefing, Teya filed this protest. See generally AR, Tab 46, Unsuccessful Offeror Notice; Tabs 48-50, Post‑Award Debriefing Materials. DISCUSSION The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal.[2] Specifically, Teya maintains that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s past performance, arguing that because MBM failed to submit recent and relevant past performance references, none of MBM’s references should have been considered. Protest at 12-13. Further, Teya contends that the agency’s price evaluation was flawed because it failed to find the awardee’s price to be unrealistically low.[3] Teya makes additional arguments that we do not address below, though we have reviewed them all and conclude that none provides a basis to sustain the protest.[4] Awardee’s Past Performance Teya contends that “the Agency impermissibly waived or relaxed the recency and relevancy requirements” of the solicitation in its evaluation of MBM’s past performance. Protest at 12.