LOGMET LLC (W81K0422Q0003)

B-420941,B-420941.2 Nov 09, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights LOGMET LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Road Rock, Texas, protests the issuance of a task order to XOtech LLC, an SDVOSB of Tyrone, Georgia, under request for quotations (RFQ) W81K0422Q0003, issued by the Department of the Army for equipment storage and maintenance services in support of a medical equipment concentrations site. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation. 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: LOGMET LLC File: B-420941; B-420941.2 Date: November 9, 2022 Timothy A. Furin, Esq., The Law Office of Timothy A. Furin, PLLC, for the protester. William T. Welch, Esq., and J. Patrick McMahon, Esq., McMahon, Welch and Learned LLC, for XOtech LLC, the intervenor. Andrew J. Smith, Esq., Dmitrius R. McGruder, Esq., Jill B. Wiley, Esq., and Seth Ritzman, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the evaluation of the protester’s quotation is denied where the agency’s evaluation conclusions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest alleging that the agency engaged in disparate treatment is denied where the differences in ratings were based on differences in the quotations. DECISION LOGMET LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Road Rock, Texas, protests the issuance of a task order to XOtech LLC, an SDVOSB of Tyrone, Georgia, under request for quotations (RFQ) W81K0422Q0003, issued by the Department of the Army for equipment storage and maintenance services in support of a medical equipment concentrations site. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 21, 2022, the Army issued the RFQ as an SDVOSB set-aside to holders of General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule contracts, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFQ at 1. The solicitation sought medical equipment storage and maintenance services at the Army’s medical equipment concentration site in Ogden, Utah. Id. at 43. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order with a 12-month base period and four 12-month option periods. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2-3. The RFQ provided for award on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis, considering the following factors: technical, past performance, and price. RFQ at 86‑88. The technical factor contained three subfactors: phase-in plan; quality control and management approach; and contractor/subcontractor key personnel qualifications.[1] Id. at 86-87. The solicitation defined an acceptable quotation as one that “clearly and comprehensively addresses each of the factors and its subfactors” and “provide[s] sufficient details for the [g]overnment to determine whether the quote satisfactorily meets the [solicitation’s] minimum requirements.” Id. at 91. An unacceptable quotation “[f]ails to clearly and comprehensively address” the factors, “[f]ails to provide sufficient detail,” and “[f]ails to clearly demonstrate” the vendor’s understanding of the solicitation and technical capability to perform its requirements. Id. at 92. As relevant to the protest, under the quality control and management approach subfactor, the solicitation advised that, when contracted personnel identify medical equipment as “non‑serviceable or non-reparable,” they should dispose of it by pulling it from storage and moving it to a designated non‑serviceable equipment rack in preparation for transport out of the facility. Id. at 63. For other equipment, the RFQ directed personnel to perform both scheduled and “remedial” maintenance. Id. at 64. The solicitation also directed vendors to address, among other things, the “bullets in [] paragraph 5.5.2.3[[2]] [of the performance work statement (PWS)]” and the vendor’s approach to “a sound management process for . . . ensuring adequate levels of performance are maintained.” Id. at 86. [REDACTED] vendors, including LOGMET and XOtech, submitted quotations by the May 20 closing date for receipt of quotations. COS at 2. The agency rated [REDACTED] as acceptable under all factors. Id. Evaluators rated LOGMET’s quotation technically unacceptable under the quality control and management approach subfactor. Id. On July 29, the agency notified LOGMET of the award to XOtech. Id. at 3.