TIYA Support Services, LLC (W9124B23R0002)

B-421538.3 May 24, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tiya Support Services, LLC, a small business of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, protests the award of a contract to Akima Intra-Data, LLC, a small business of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124B23R0002, issued by the Department of the Army for firefighting, rescue, and emergency services. The protester challenges the agency's past performance evaluation and best-value tradeoff 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: Tiya Support Services, LLC File: B-421538.3 Date: May 24, 2024 Robert Nichols, Esq., Michael Bhargava, Esq., and Logan Kemp, Esq., Nichols Liu LLP, for the protester. Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., and Matthew L. Nicholson, Esq., Potomac Law Group, PLLC, for Akima Intra‑Data, LLC, the intervenor. Major Joshua B. Fix, Department of the Army, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protester is an interested party notwithstanding the resignation of a proposed key person when the key person remained available and committed to perform on the contract if awarded to the protester. 2. Protest challenging past performance evaluation is denied where the agency reasonably considered a contract performed by the protester’s proposed subcontractor when assessing protester’s overall confidence rating. DECISION Tiya Support Services, LLC, a small business of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, protests the award of a contract to Akima Intra-Data, LLC, a small business of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124B23R0002, issued by the Department of the Army for firefighting, rescue, and emergency services. The protester challenges the agency’s past performance evaluation and best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On October 17, 2022, the Army issued the RFP as a total small business set-aside using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation part 15. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 1.[1]The solicitation sought proposals to provide emergency services support, including 24-hour fire suppression, dispatching, and operations services, as well as prevention and inspection services, at U.S. Army Garrison Fort Irwin, California. COS at 1; RFP at 140. The solicitation contemplated award of a fixed-price contract with a 30‑day phase‑in period, an 11‑month base period, and four 1‑year option periods. RFP at 142. The solicitation provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best overall value to the government considering three factors: (1) mission capability; (2) past performance; and (3) price. Id. at 332. Proposals would first be evaluated for technical acceptability under the mission capability factor on a pass/fail basis considering two subfactors: technical capability and proposed staffing. Id. Only those proposals found to be technically acceptable for both subfactors would be further evaluated for past performance and price. Id. at 332, 334. The award decision would be based on a tradeoff between past performance and price, where past performance was more important than price. Id. at 332. Under the past performance factor, the solicitation instructed offerors to provide “documentation outlining the offeror’s past performance with contracts, as a prime or major subcontractor, which is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services being procured under this solicitation.” Id. at 329. The RFP defined recency as work performed within “six (6) years from the issue date of this RFP” and defined relevant efforts as “services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort . . . required by the RFP.” Id. at 328. Offerors were required to include a “specific narrative explanation and rationale supporting objectives achieved and assertions of relevance and how it was determined that the work performed previously was the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the work specified by this solicitation.” Id. Offerors were also required to provide a past performance questionnaire (PPQ), submitted separately, for each contract reference. Id.