Gemini Tech Services, LLC (W519TC-23-R-0094)

B-422620 Sep 05, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Gemini Tech Services, LLC, a small business of Willow Park, Texas, protests the issuance of a task order to JP Logistics & Consulting, LLC, of Prince George, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W519TC-23-R-0094, issued by the Department of the Army for logistics support services. The protester challenges the agency's decision to conduct discussions with JP and the evaluation of the awardee's price. 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: Gemini Tech Services, LLC File: B-422620 Date: September 5, 2024 Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., John M. Mattox II, Esq., Ian P. Patterson, Esq., and Timothy J. Laughlin, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for the protester. Cherylyn Harley LeBon, Esq., Ben R. Smith, Esq., and Patrice Z. Howard, Esq., Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, for JP Logistics & Consulting, LLC, the intervenor. Brittany N. Salter, Esq., and Debra J. Talley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency's decision to include eventual awardee in the competitive range is denied where the decision was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest challenging agency's cost realism evaluation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. DECISION Gemini Tech Services, LLC, a small business of Willow Park, Texas, protests the issuance of a task order to JP Logistics & Consulting, LLC, of Prince George, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W519TC-23-R-0094, issued by the Department of the Army for logistics support services. The protester challenges the agency's decision to conduct discussions with JP and the evaluation of the awardee's price. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on October 3, 2023, as a competitive 8(a) set-aside,[1] to holders of the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise basic ordering agreement for logistics readiness center maintenance, supply, and transportation requirements. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP at 1-2. The Army sought proposals for logistics support services, including maintenance, supply, and transportation support at the Army Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. Id. at 2. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a single cost-plus-fixed-fee task order, for one base year and four 1-year option periods. Id. The solicitation contemplated the evaluation of the following factors: technical, past performance and cost/price. Id. Award was to be made to the: responsible [o]fferor with the lowest evaluated (fair and reasonable) priced proposal that is determined [t]echnically [a]cceptable with [s]ubstantial [c]onfidence in [p]ast [p]erformance. RFP at 62, § M.4.1.[2] The RFP instructed that the agency would use a multistep evaluation process. Initially, the Army was to conduct a strict compliance review; compliant proposals would then advance to step 1, the evaluation of technical proposals. RFP at 61, § M.3.2. The technical evaluation was to assess offerors' staffing and management plans, and the proposed management approach and organizational structure. Id. at 63, § M.5.1. The solicitation provided that the agency would “evaluate the [t]echnical proposals of the first five or 20 [percent] of the lowest total proposed priced compliant offers against the technical evaluation criteria.” Id. at 62, § M.4.1 STEP 1. During step 2, the Army was to evaluate each offeror's past performance and proposed cost/price, the latter for both reasonableness and realism. Id. at 62, § M.4.1 STEP 2; id. at 66, § 5.3.1. Next, all proposals with realistic pricing and a substantial confidence rating under the past performance factor would advance to step 3. Id. at 62, § M.4.1 STEP 2 (d). As relevant to this protest, the RFP advised that award would be made without discussions but reserved the agency's right to conduct discussions if they were deemed advantageous by the contracting officer. Id. at 62, § M.4.1 STEP 1. The solicitation included the following language about conducting discussions in step 1: IF AND ONLY IF discussions are conducted, upon completion of the Technical Factor evaluations, the Government will make a subsequent competitive range determination, [in accordance with] FAR 15.306, based on the final ratings of each technical proposal against the Technical Factor evaluation criteria.