US&S-Pegasus JV, LLC (FA670323R0001)

B-421681.8,B-421681.9 Nov 19, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights US&S-Pegasus JV, LLC, of Greenville, South Carolina, protests the award of a contract to Criterion Corporation, of Marquette, Michigan, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA670323R0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for base operations support services at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Cobb County, Georgia. The protester contends that the agency failed to perform a price realism analysis, unreasonably evaluated past performance, and made a flawed best-value determination. 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: US&S-Pegasus JV, LLC File: B-421681.8; B-421681.9 Date: November 19, 2024 Katelyn Hoelscher, Esq., John C. Dulske, Esq., and Alyssa Isenberg, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC, for the protester. Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., and Matthew L. Nicholson, Esq., Potomac Law Group, for Criterion Corporation, the intervenor. Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Geoffrey R. Townsend, Esq., and Aaron J. Weaver, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Christine Milne, Esq., and Todd C. Culliton, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency failed to conduct a price realism analysis is denied where the record shows that the agency was not required to perform a price realism analysis. 2. Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated past performance is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated past performance in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 3. Protest that the agency made a flawed best-value determination is denied where the record shows that the agency qualitatively compared proposals and made a reasonable best-value determination. DECISION US&S-Pegasus JV, LLC, of Greenville, South Carolina, protests the award of a contract to Criterion Corporation, of Marquette, Michigan, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA670323R0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for base operations support services at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Cobb County, Georgia. The protester contends that the agency failed to perform a price realism analysis, unreasonably evaluated past performance, and made a flawed best-value determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on March 30, 2023, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3, for base operations support services. Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFP at 1, 18. The services included materiel management, ground transportation and vehicle management, traffic management, real property maintenance, and fuel management. Id. at 18. The RFP contemplated the award of a hybrid fixed-price, time-and-materials, and cost-reimbursement, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, to be performed over a 60-day phase-in period, a 1-year base period, four 1-year option periods, a 6-month period, and a 60-day phase-out period. Id. at 52. Award would be made to the proposal representing the best value to the government considering price and two non-price factors: technical and past performance. RFP at 52, 736; AR, Tab 12, RFP amend. 0007 at 29. Under the technical factor, offerors were required to provide an approach that met the requirements of the performance work statement (PWS). RFP amend. 0007 at 30. Proposals were to be assigned ratings of acceptable or unacceptable under the technical factor. Id. at 31. Under the past performance factor, offerors were required to identify at least two but no more than five past performance references. Id. at 18. Identified contracts could reference performance of the offeror, or its joint venture partners, teaming partners, or significant subcontractors. Id. at 33. The references had to be recent, relevant, and demonstrate quality performance. Id. at 37. To be recent, references could be active or completed, but at least one year of the contract effort’s period of performance had to have been completed within the past seven years from the date the RFP was issued. Id. at 19. To be relevant, references had to be similar to the current requirement in terms of scope, complexity, and magnitude. Id. at 34-35. References would receive a rating of very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant. Id. at 34. Regarding performance quality, the agency would assess how well the offeror or its joint venture partners, teaming partners, or significant subcontractors had performed the contract by considering information such as past performance questionnaires. Id. at 35-36. Proposals were to be assigned overall past performance ratings of substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, neutral confidence, or limited confidence. Id.