Madison Services, Inc. (W912EE22R0002)

B-420922 Nov 07, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Madison Services, Inc., a small business of Madison, Mississippi, protests the award of a contract to Re-Engineered Business Solutions, Inc. (RBS), also a small business of Cocoa, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912EE22R0002, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for a broad range of operations, maintenance, and repair services to flood control facilities in Greenwood, Mississippi. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its technical, past performance, and cost proposals, and the best-value tradeoff determination. 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: Madison Services, Inc. File: B-420922 Date: November 7, 2022 Lynn Patton Thompson, Esq., Biggs, Pettis, Ingram & Solop, PLLC, for the protester. Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Antonio R. Franco, Esq., and Eric A. Valle, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for Re-Engineered Business Solutions, Inc., the intervenor. Thomas J. Warren, Esq., David Dyer, Esq., and James Pigott, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest of agency’s technical evaluation is denied where the protester has not demonstrated that the evaluation was unreasonable or that the agency evaluated proposals unequally. 2. Protest of agency’s best‑value tradeoff decision is denied where the agency considered the technical merit and price difference between proposals and made a reasonable determination that the awardee’s technical superiority warranted paying the price premium. DECISION Madison Services, Inc., a small business of Madison, Mississippi, protests the award of a contract to Re-Engineered Business Solutions, Inc. (RBS), also a small business of Cocoa, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912EE22R0002, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for a broad range of operations, maintenance, and repair services to flood control facilities in Greenwood, Mississippi. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its technical, past performance, and cost proposals, and the best-value tradeoff determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on April 14, 2022, as a small business set-aside, seeking services related to the operations, maintenance, repair, inspection, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of project facilities, water control structures, and other features managed by the agency’s Vicksburg District Greenwood area office. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 14. The RFP provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with some fixed-price line items, for a base year and four 1-year option periods. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. The solicitation advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated based on the following three factors: (1) technical; (2) past performance; and (3) cost/price. RFP at 135. The technical factor consisted of four equally-weighted subfactors: technical experience; staffing; management plan; and equipment. Id. The RFP provided that the technical factor was more important than past performance; and the non-cost/price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price. Id. The agency received three proposals, including proposals from Madison and RBS, by the May 18 solicitation closing date. COS at 2. After evaluating proposals, the source selection evaluation board (SSEB) identified strengths and weaknesses, and made other narrative findings regarding the offerors’ proposals in support of the assigned adjectival ratings. AR, Tab 2, SSEB Report at 11-19. While the SSEB judged Madison’s non-cost proposal to be the second highest, bested only by RBS, it noted that the firm’s technical proposal failed to demonstrate experience with operating flood control structures, and therefore assigned Madison a rating of marginal for the technical experience subfactor. Id. at 10, 14. The SSEB also evaluated the protester’s past performance as “limited confidence” based on a consideration of the protester’s references--two of which were “primarily related to mowing, grounds maintenance, and limited custodial work” and thus found not relevant. Id. at 16. Subsequently, the SSEB presented its findings to the source selection authority (SSA), who reviewed the SSEB’s report and evaluated price proposals for reasonableness and realism. AR, Tab 3, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 5-10, 11-17.