Criterion Corporation (FA6643-23-R-0004)

B-422309 Apr 16, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Criterion Corporation, of Marquette, Michigan, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA6643-23-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Air Force for base operations support services. Criterion argues that the agency unreasonably found its proposed price to be unrealistic. We sustain the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Criterion Corporation File: B-422309 Date: April 16, 2024 Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., Joseph P. Loman, Esq., and Kelly A. Kirchgasser, Esq., Piliero Mazza, PLLC, for the protester. Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., and Nicholas T. Iliff, Jr., Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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 Protest that the agency unreasonably rejected the protester’s proposal based on unrealistic pricing is sustained where the record shows that the price realism analysis did not sufficiently consider the firm’s proposed technical approach. DECISION Criterion Corporation, of Marquette, Michigan, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA6643-23-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Air Force for base operations support services. Criterion argues that the agency unreasonably found its proposed price to be unrealistic. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND On September 26, 2023, the Air Force issued the RFP to procure base operations support services at Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida. Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFP at 1, 16; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2.[1] Specific services to be provided included materiel management, ground transportation and vehicle management, traffic management operations, real property maintenance, and fuels management. RFP at 16. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with orders to be placed on fixed-price, time-and-material, and cost-reimbursable bases. RFP at 3-13. The contract would be performed over a 1-year base period, four 1-year option periods, and one 6‑month extension period. Id. The RFP provided for a two-step evaluation process, which would culminate in a tradeoff between past performance and price factors. RFP at 2032, 2035. Under step one, the agency would evaluate proposed prices to determine whether they were complete, fair, reasonable, balanced, and, if necessary, realistic. Id. Any offeror with an unfavorable proposed price would be excluded from further consideration. Id. Under step two, the agency would evaluate proposals for technical acceptability, starting with the lowest priced proposal. RFP at 2035. The agency would then evaluate offerors’ referenced past performance. Id. Finally, the agency would select the proposal offering the most favorable combination of price and past performance for award. Id. The agency received multiple proposals prior to the November 20, 2023, close of the solicitation period. AR, Tab 8, RFP, amend. 3 at 2; COS at 4. The agency reviewed Criterion’s proposal and determined that its proposed price was significantly lower than the internal government estimate (IGE) and the average proposed price.[2] Id. As a result, the agency conducted a price realism analysis and concluded that Criterion’s proposed price was unrealistic. Id. at 4‑5. On January 12, 2024, the Air Force notified Criterion that its proposal was excluded from further consideration on the basis that the proposed price was unrealistically low. AR, Tab 11, Notice of Unsuccessful Offeror at 1. This protest followed. DISCUSSION Criterion argues that the agency unreasonably conducted the price realism analysis. Protest at 6-9. The protester asserts that it proposed a unique technical approach with numerous beneficial aspects that yielded a very competitive price, but that the agency ignored this technical approach and simply conducted a mechanical comparison of the firm’s proposed price against the IGE and the average price of other offerors. Id. The agency responds that it reasonably determined that Criterion’s proposed price was unrealistically low because it examined the firm’s underlying technical approach.[3] MOL at 8. The Air Force explains that it examined Criterion’s technical proposal and determined that the firm proposed more full-time equivalents (FTE) than proposed by the second-low offeror, despite Criterion’s price being significantly lower. COS at 7. The Air Force also explains that it compared the simple average percentage difference between Criterion’s proposed labor rate and that of the second-low offeror and determined that the average percentage difference was only marginally lower. COS at 5; see also AR, Tab 10, Cost/Price Worksheet at 5.