Merrill Company- d/b/a Mission Support (SPRHA1-22-R-7001)

B-421082,B-421082.2,B-421083,B-421083.2,B-421084,B-421084.2 Dec 21, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Merrill Company - d/b/a Mission Support, a small business, of Clearfield, Utah, challenges the award of three contracts to R&M Government Services, Inc., also a small business, of Las Cruces, New Mexico, by the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), under solicitation Nos. SPRHA4-22-R-0009, SPRHA1-22-R-7001, and SPRHA1-22-R-7002, which were issued for A-10 aircraft parts. The protester argues that the award was improper because the agency's evaluation of the awardee's proposal and the award decision were unreasonable with regard to technical acceptability, compliance with the small business limitation on subcontracting clause, past performance, price realism, and responsibility. The protester also argues that the contracting officer unreasonably failed to file a protest with the Small Business Administration (SBA) challenging R&M's small business status. We deny in part and dismiss in part the protests. 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: Merrill Company- d/b/a Mission Support File: B-421082; B-421082.2; B-421083; B-421083.2; B-421084; B-421084.2 Date: December 21, 2022 Alan Grayson, Esq., for the protester. Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., John M. Mattox II, Esq., Ian P. Patterson, Esq., and Timothy Laughlin, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for R&M Government Services, Inc., the intervenor. Michael J. O’Farrell, Jr., Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protester is not an interested party to challenge the award of two out of three contracts where the solicitations provided for award to the offerors that submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposals, and where the protester does not challenge the evaluations of intervening proposals that were found technically acceptable and lower-priced than the protester’s proposals. 2. Protest that the agency unreasonably found the awardee’s proposal technically acceptable is denied where the evaluation was consistent with the solicitation criteria. 3. Protest that the agency should have found the awardee’s proposal ineligible for award because it violated the solicitation’s limitation on subcontracting clause is denied where the proposal did not take exception to the clause. 4. Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the realism of the awardee’s proposed price is denied where the agency reasonably found that the proposed price was realistic based on exchanges with the awardee. 5. Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s past performance is denied where the agency considered negative information identified by the protester and reasonably concluded that the awardee’s proposal merited a rating of acceptable. 6. Protest that the agency unreasonably found the awardee a responsible offeror is dismissed because our Office does not review affirmative determinations of responsibility, apart from exceptions not applicable here. 7. Protest that the contracting officer unreasonable failed to file a protest with the Small Business Administration challenging the awardee’s size status is dismissed as untimely where the protester failed to diligently pursue its grounds of protest. DECISION Merrill Company - d/b/a Mission Support, a small business, of Clearfield, Utah, challenges the award of three contracts to R&M Government Services, Inc., also a small business, of Las Cruces, New Mexico, by the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), under solicitation Nos. SPRHA4-22-R-0009, SPRHA1-22-R-7001, and SPRHA1-22-R-7002[1], which were issued for A-10 aircraft parts. The protester argues that the award was improper because the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal and the award decision were unreasonable with regard to technical acceptability, compliance with the small business limitation on subcontracting clause, past performance, price realism, and responsibility. The protester also argues that the contracting officer unreasonably failed to file a protest with the Small Business Administration (SBA) challenging R&M’s small business status. We deny in part and dismiss in part the protests. BACKGROUND DLA issued three solicitations for center nacelles and doors[2] for A-10 aircraft, which are operated by the Department of the Air Force. On February 18, 2022, the agency issued solicitation No. 0009, which sought 32 each of left-hand and right-hand center nacelles, and anticipated the award of a fixed-price contract. AR (B‑421082) Tab 3, RFP No. 0009 at 1, 11-12. On March 17, the agency issued solicitation No.