International Service Contractors, LLC (HQC00822R0031)

B-421333 Feb 16, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights International Service Contractors, LLC (ISC), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business, of Clermont, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Logistical Customer Service, Inc. (LCS), of Dunn, North Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQC00822R0031, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) for shelf stocking and custodial tasks to be performed at the Fort Knox Commissary in Kentucky. The protester questions the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation and best-value tradeoff analysis. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: International Service Contractors, LLC File: B-421333 Date: February 16, 2023 Brian Mitchell for the protester. Lance Locke, Esq., and Patrick Vanderpool, Esq., Defense Commissary Agency, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the reasonableness of the agency’s technical evaluation and best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the record reflects that both were reasonable, consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and adequately documented. DECISION International Service Contractors, LLC (ISC), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business, of Clermont, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Logistical Customer Service, Inc. (LCS), of Dunn, North Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQC00822R0031, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) for shelf stocking and custodial tasks to be performed at the Fort Knox Commissary in Kentucky. The protester questions the reasonableness of the agency’s evaluation and best-value tradeoff analysis.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation contemplated the award of a single fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the agency, considering two non-price factors--performance capability and past performance--and price. Agency Report (AR), attach. 2, RFP at 70, 72-73. The performance capability factor had two subfactors--technical capability and personnel--each of which had four elements. Id. at 73. As relevant to this protest, the personnel subfactor’s four elements were night shelf stocking, night custodial, day requirements, and indirect labor.[2] Id. The technical capability subfactor was significantly more important than the personnel subfactor. Id. at 73. The factors, subfactors, and elements were assigned adjectival ratings of outstanding, very good, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory.[3] Id. at 74. The performance capability and past performance factors, when combined, were approximately equal to price. Id. at 73. The RFP anticipated a 1-year base period and four 1‑year option periods. Id. at 69. DeCA received 10 proposals--including the protester’s and awardee’s--nine of which met the RFP’s minimum criteria. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 1, Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 1. The agency evaluated ISC’s and LCS’s proposals as very good under both the performance capability and past performance factors. Id. at 10. Notwithstanding its overall rating of very good under the performance capability factor, ISC’s proposal received a rating of unsatisfactory under the day requirements element of the personnel subfactor. Protest, attach. 5, Debriefing at 6-7. LCS’s total proposed price of $3,708,155 was higher than ISC’s total proposed price of $3,345,717. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 1, SSD at 10. The contracting officer, who was the source selection authority (SSA) for this procurement, conducted a tradeoff of LCS’s proposal with each of the eight other eligible proposals. See id. at 10-13. In the tradeoff between ISC’s and LCS’s proposals, the SSA noted the identical factor ratings and LCS’s price premium. Id. at 11. The SSA also noted that ISC’s proposal was evaluated as unsatisfactory under the day requirements element of the personnel subfactor. Id. The SSA found that there was a “substantial risk to the government in awarding a contract to International Service Contractors, LLC,” because the protester proposed “significantly lower” labor hours for the day requirement than contained in the government estimate. Id. at 12. Because of that “substantial risk to the government,” and notwithstanding the price premium of the awardee’s proposal, the agency found that ISC’s proposal did not offer a better value to the government than LSC’s. See id. at 14-15. After completing the tradeoff analysis, the SSA concluded that LCS’s proposal represented the best value to the government, because the awardee’s proposal offered the “requisite capabilities” and “adequate [labor hours] to perform and supervise the required services.” Id.