Logistix Inc. (W912EE22R0003)

B-421341 Mar 27, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Logistix, Inc., an 8(a) small business of New Market, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Ajanta Consulting, LLP, an 8(a) small business of San Antonio, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912EE22R0003, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (USACE). The agency issued the RFP for a broad variety of services including operations, maintenance, repair, inspection, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of project facilities, water control structures, and other features at lakes in Mississippi that are managed by the USACE Vicksburg District, Mississippi. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of its proposal is unreasonable, and as a result the award decision is flawed. 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: Logistix Inc. File: B-421341 Date: March 27, 2023 Lauren R. Brier, Esq., Antonio R. Franco, Esq., and Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., PilieroMazza PLLC, for the protester. Stowell Holcomb, Esq., Jackson Holcomb, LLP, for Ajanta Consulting, LLP, the intervenor. E. Christopher Lambert, Esq., Nancy D. Thomas, Esq., and James Pigott, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the evaluation of the protester’s technical experience is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Logistix, Inc., an 8(a)[1] small business of New Market, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Ajanta Consulting, LLP, an 8(a) small business of San Antonio, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912EE22R0003, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (USACE). The agency issued the RFP for a broad variety of services including operations, maintenance, repair, inspection, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of project facilities, water control structures, and other features at lakes in Mississippi that are managed by the USACE Vicksburg District, Mississippi. The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of its proposal is unreasonable, and as a result the award decision is flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND USACE Vicksburg District is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the USACE resources and interests in flood control projects within the state of Mississippi. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 51. Four engineered flood control reservoirs--lakes Arkabutla, Sardis, Enid, and Grenada--were constructed along the upper Yazoo River Basin, initially for flood control purposes, and are currently also managed for public recreation, hunting, fishing, and preservation of biological resources. Id. at 52. The RFP, issued on May 25, 2022, using Federal Acquisition Regulation part 15 procedures with competition limited to eligible 8(a) participants, contemplated award of a hybrid contract with cost-plus-fixed-fee and fixed-price contract line items, for a 1-year period and up to four 1-year option periods. Id. at 103, 164, 223. The contractor will be required to provide all labor, equipment, fuel, supplies, transportation, supervision, and management for the inspection, operation, maintenance, repair, reconstruction and rehabilitation of project facilities, water control structures, and other features at the four lakes. Id. at 52. The RFP required that offerors submit proposals consisting of three volumes: technical, past performance, and cost. RFP at 211, 225. The technical factor included the following four subfactors: technical experience; staffing; management plan; and equipment. Id. The RFP stated that all of the technical subfactors were of equal importance; the technical factor was more important than past performance; and when combined, the technical and past performance factors were significantly more important than cost. Id. at 225. Under the technical factor, ratings were to be assigned as follows: outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable. Id. at 228. The RFP stated that an award would not be made to an offeror that received a rating of unacceptable under the technical factor. Id. at 227. The agency received three proposals, including from Ajanta and Logistix. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. Following an initial evaluation of proposals, the agency engaged in discussions with Ajanta and Logistix, and provided both the opportunity to submit revised proposals.[2] Id. The agency evaluated Logistix’s revised proposal and assigned a rating of unacceptable under the technical experience subfactor, which resulted in an overall rating of unacceptable under the technical factor.