Superior Waste Management, LLC (W911RX22B0003)

B-421022,B-421022.2 Dec 15, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Superior Waste Management, LLC (SWM), a small business of Dunn, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to Nisou Enterprises, of Wichita, Kansas, under invitation for bids (IFB) No. W911RX22B0003, issued by the Department of the Army for refuse and recycling services at Fort Riley, Kansas. The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of the awardee's bid was unreasonable, and that the agency improperly accepted and considered an intervening bidder's late bid. We deny the protest in part and dismiss in part. 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: Superior Waste Management, LLC File: B-421022; B-421022.2 Date: December 15, 2022 Douglas P. Hibshman, Esq., and Nicholas Solosky, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for the protester. Benjamin Hogan, Esq ., Andrew J. Smith, Esq., and Abraham Young, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Michael P. Price, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably accepted intervening bidder’s late bid, where agency failed to implement reasonable procedures to ensure the timely receipt of bids and where consideration of the late bid did not otherwise compromise the integrity of the procurement process. 2. Protester is not an interested party to challenge the agency’s evaluation of the awardee where the protester has otherwise failed to raise protest grounds challenging the agency’s evaluation of an intervening bidder. DECISION Superior Waste Management, LLC (SWM), a small business of Dunn, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to Nisou Enterprises, of Wichita, Kansas, under invitation for bids (IFB) No. W911RX22B0003, issued by the Department of the Army for refuse and recycling services at Fort Riley, Kansas. The protester argues that the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s bid was unreasonable, and that the agency improperly accepted and considered an intervening bidder’s late bid. We deny the protest in part and dismiss in part. BACKGROUND The Army issued the IFB on March 1, 2022, under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 14, seeking bids for refuse and recycling services, as well as construction and demolition landfill services on Fort Riley. Agency Report (AR), Tab 03a, IFB at 1, 41. The IFB provided that award would be made to the responsible bidder who represented the best value to the government, considering only price and price related factors. AR, Tab 03c, IFB, amend. 2 (IFB) at 17.[1] The IFB established a deadline for receipt of bids at 12:00 p.m. Central Time on April 27, with a bid opening scheduled to occur at 1:00 p.m. that same day. Id at 15. Bids were required to be delivered, either by mail or hand-carried, to the Mission and Installation Contracting Command (MICC) building on Fort Riley.[2] Id. The IFB advised bidders that late bids would be handled in accordance with FAR provision 52.214-7. Id. The Army had three bids in its possession by the noon deadline for receipt of bids on April 27. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. The agency conducted bid opening as scheduled, announced SWM as the apparent low bidder, and prepared a bid abstract with each of the three bidders’ proposed contract line item number (CLIN) pricing. Id. After further review of the bids, the contracting officer requested clarifications from the protester and Nisou regarding discrepancies in pricing in their bids. Id. Following receipt of clarifications, the contracting officer revised the bid abstract, and informed the protester that Nisou was in fact the apparent low bidder in a May 19 email, which also contained the awardee’s CLIN pricing. Protest, exh. B-1 and B-2; COS at 2-3. On May 27, the protester filed an agency‑level protest with the contracting officer, arguing that the agency’s price evaluation of the awardee was flawed, and that the awardee was not a responsible bidder to perform the contract. COS at 4; AR, Tab 10a, Agency-Level Protest Decision at 1. The Army continued to evaluate bids during the pendency of the agency‑level protest, with the source selection evaluation board and source selection advisory council convening in May and August, respectively. COS at 4. On August 23, the agency informed the protester that it was denying the agency-level protest. AR, Tab 10a, Agency-Level Protest Decision at 1. The agency decision stated that the Army concluded that the protester was not an interested party to the protest, because there was a fourth, lower‑priced, intervening bidder, Cal Vet Integrated Consulting Services-Avartara (CVICS), which would have been in line for award even if the protest grounds against the awardee were sustained.