Chugach Logistics-Facility Services JV, LLC (W912CN-22-R-0013)

B-421451.7 Aug 05, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Chugach Logistics and Facility Services JV, LLC, of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to Chenega Base and Logistics Services, LLC, of San Antonio, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912CN-22-R-0013, issued by the Department of the Army for base operations and maintenance services. Chugach argues that the Army unreasonably evaluated proposals and improperly made the selection decision. 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: Chugach Logistics-Facility Services JV, LLC File: B-421451.7 Date: August 5, 2024 Douglas L. Patin, Esq. and Lisa A. Markman, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Stowell B. Holcomb, Esq., Jackson Holcomb LLP, for Chenega Base and Logistics Services, LLC, the intervenor. John C. Degnan, Esq. and Angela M. Fortier, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq. and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency unreasonably reevaluated another firm's proposal as part of corrective action is denied where the record shows that the agency reevaluated that proposal to address a procurement impropriety, and that any improvement in the evaluation was the result of the agency more fully considering the advantages offered. 2. Protest that the agency unreasonably failed to assign an additional strength to the protester's technical proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably considered the features of the firm's proposal and concluded that they did not warrant any additional strengths. 3. Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's past performance proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 4. Protest that the agency unreasonably conducted its tradeoff analysis is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably compared the relative benefits and disadvantages offered by the competing proposals. DECISION Chugach Logistics and Facility Services JV, LLC, of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to Chenega Base and Logistics Services, LLC, of San Antonio, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912CN22R0013, issued by the Department of the Army for base operations and maintenance services. Chugach argues that the Army unreasonably evaluated proposals and improperly made the selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 13, 2022, the Army issued the RFP to procure commercial base operations and maintenance services at Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks, Alaska. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3a, RFP at 1; AR, Tab 3b, RFP, Annex A, Overarching Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 4. Services to be provided include: solid waste management; grounds maintenance; snow, ice, and sand removal; maintenance surfaced and unsurfaced; facility maintenance; heating and cooling; wastewater; and, pest management. RFP, Annex A, Overarching PWS at 46. The RFP contemplated the award of a hybrid fixed-price and time-and-materials indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract to be performed over a 60day phasein period, a 10-month base period, four 12-month option periods, and one 6-month extension period. AR, Tab 3r, RFP, amend. 2 at 10-24; AR, Tab 2a, Amended Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2. Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis pursuant to the procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, Contracting by Negotiation. RFP, amend. 2 at 36. Evaluation factors consisted of technical, past performance, property management plan, and price factors. Id. at 37. When combined, the non-price factors were to be considered equal to price. Id. The technical factor included two subfactors, technical approach and management approach. RFP, amend. 2 at 38-39. The technical approach subfactor consisted of five elements: fire alarm; fire suppression and building mass notification systems; snow and ice removal and maintenance of paved and unpaved surfaces; heating and cooling services; facility maintenance and repairs; and execution plan summary. Id. at 39. The management approach factor consisted of two elements: program management and staffing, and key personnel. Id. When evaluating the technical factor, the agency would evaluate both the proposed approach and the related risk of unsuccessful performance and assign combined technical/risk ratings. Id. at 37-38. The RFP provided for the following color/adjectival rating combinations: blue/outstanding; purple/good; green/acceptable; yellow/marginal; and red/unacceptable.