Ashton Marine Company (W912P624R0006)

B-422634 Sep 05, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ashton Marine Company, a small business of Muskegon, Michigan, protests the award of a contract to Midwest Construction Company, LLC, a small business of Nebraska City, Nebraska, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912P624R0006, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers for the delivery of armor stone to six Lake Michigan harbors. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably eliminated Ashton's proposal from the competition and failed to conduct meaningful and equal discussions. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Ashton Marine Company File: B-422634 Date: September 5, 2024 David A. Rose, Esq., Rose Consulting Law Firm, for the protester. Ian McDaniel, Esq., 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. Protest challenging agency's elimination of protester's proposal from competition is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably determined that the protester failed to provide a required resume for a key person. 2. Protest that agency conducted discussions in a manner that was not meaningful or equal is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably advised the protester of the agency's concerns with the protester's proposal and treated offerors in an even-handed manner. DECISION Ashton Marine Company, a small business of Muskegon, Michigan, protests the award of a contract to Midwest Construction Company, LLC, a small business of Nebraska City, Nebraska, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912P624R0006, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers for the delivery of armor stone to six Lake Michigan harbors. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably eliminated Ashton's proposal from the competition and failed to conduct meaningful and equal discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 14, 2024, the agency issued the RFP pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, seeking proposals to provide armor stone for breakwater repairs at six harbors of Lake Michigan, located in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 12; Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 010, 016.[1] The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixedprice, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a 3year ordering period. RFP at 016. Award was to be made on a lowestpriced, technically acceptable basis, considering price and compliance with the solicitation. Id. at 039040. Under the compliance with the solicitation factor, the RFP advised that the agency would evaluate each offeror's proposal for compliance with the solicitation instructions, assessing a rating of acceptable or unacceptable. Id. at 040. To receive a rating of acceptable, the agency needed to find that a proposal complied with all requirements of the solicitation instructions. Id. As relevant here, under the “[c]ontent [r]equirement” portion of the proposal instructions, the solicitation required offerors to provide, among other items, the following: A current copy of the Key personnel resume and a letter of commitment. Refer to the Scope of work, for the requirements of a Stone Material Control Supervisor. Id. at 038. The RFP's scope of work, in turn, provided that the contractor “shall assign as key personnel, a Stone Material Control Field [] Supervisor,” and specified minimum qualification requirements for the position. AR, Tab 4, Purchase Description at 070. The agency received two timely submitted proposals, one from Ashton and one from Midwest. COS at 2. During the course of the evaluation, the source selection evaluation board (SSEB) found that both proposals failed to comply with the solicitation requirement to provide a resume and letter of commitment for the stone material supervisor position and, as a result, determined that both offerors' proposals were technically unacceptable. AR, Tab 9, SSEB First Interim Evaluation Report at 098099. Specifically, for the protester, the agency found that Ashton's proposal included a resume for its “tugboat pilot and not a Stone Material Control Field Supervisor” and thus “failed to comply with the resume and letter [of] commitment, as required.” Id. at 098. The agency also found that Midwest similarly failed to “comply with the solicitation instructions [to] provide a Key Personnel resume.” Id. at 099. Consequently, the agency decided that a “round of discussions is needed to correct resume and letter of commitment deficiencies in both proposals.” Id.