Siertek-Peerless JV, LLC (70T01023R7668N001)

B-422085,B-422085.2 Jan 02, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SierTeK-Peerless JV LLC, an 8(a) small business of Beavercreek, Ohio, protests the issuance of a task order to Strativia LLC, an 8(a) small business of Largo, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70T01023R7668N001, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for support services to maintain TSA's property management program. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated Strativia's proposal and improperly determined that it offered the best value to the agency. We sustain the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: SierTeK-Peerless JV LLC File: B-422085; B-422085.2 Date: January 2, 2024 Suzanne Sumner, Esq., Barbara A. Duncombe, Esq., Erin R. Davis, Esq., Brandon E. Dobyns, Esq., and Alexander Gorelik, Esq., Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, for the protester. Michael Kiffney, Esq., and Scott Dalton, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal is sustained where the record is insufficiently documented to demonstrate that the agency reasonably evaluated the prior experience evaluation factor in a manner consistent with the solicitation. DECISION SierTeK-Peerless JV LLC, an 8(a) small business of Beavercreek, Ohio, protests the issuance of a task order to Strativia LLC, an 8(a) small business of Largo, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70T01023R7668N001, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for support services to maintain TSA’s property management program.[1] The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated Strativia’s proposal and improperly determined that it offered the best value to the agency. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP pursuant to the fair opportunity source selection procedures of FAR subpart 16.5 to firms holding indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contracts under the General Services Administration’s One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) Governmentwide Acquisition Contract. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, Amended RFP at AR 0090.[2] The competition was open to OASIS 8(a) pool No.1 contract holders. COS at 2; Amended RFP at AR 0090. The RFP, which the agency amended once, sought proposals for technical and administrative property management support services to support the maintenance of the agency’s property management program. COS at 2; Amended RFP at AR 0093. The RFP contemplated issuance of a single task order with fixed‑price, time‑and‑materials, and cost‑reimbursement line items, with a 1‑year base period of performance (inclusive of a 2‑month transition period) and four 1‑year option periods, as well as a 6‑month option to extend services. Amended RFP at AR 0091‑0092, 0140, 0173. The RFP provided for a best‑value tradeoff using five evaluation factors, which are listed in descending order of importance: prior experience; staffing approach; technical demonstration; technical scenarios; and price. Id. at AR 0173‑0174. Relevant here, the RFP’s instructions with respect to prior experience directed offerors to provide a detailed description of prior efforts “where the [o]fferor provided property management support . . . of a similar size and scope as the TSA [p]roperty [m]anagement [p]rogram[,]” and, in part, to “[d]escribe the project’s size and scope, demonstrating how the work is similar to the requirements in the [p]roperty [m]anagement [performance work statement].” Id. at AR 0168‑0169. Correspondingly, the RFP’s evaluation criteria stated in part that the agency would “assess its level of confidence that the [o]fferor provided a detailed description of prior relevant experience examples where the [o]fferor provided property management support . . . of a similar size and scope as the TSA [p]roperty [m]anagement [p]rogram.” Id. at AR 0174. The agency would assign a rating of low, some, or high confidence to proposals under each of the non‑price factors, including the prior experience factor. Id. at AR 0173. The protester and Strativia submitted the only proposals in response to the RFP. COS at 2.