Avalon Contracting, Inc (W9123624R4005)

B-423021 Jan 08, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Avalon Contracting, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Tacoma, Washington, protests the award of a contract to Tiya Support Services, LLC, a small business of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9123624R4005, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for preventive and demand maintenance repair services. Avalon asserts that the agency improperly evaluated offerors' past performance. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Avalon Contracting, Inc. File: B-423021 Date: January 8, 2025 Robert A. Lockwood for the protester. Jerome S. Gabig, Esq., Government Procurement Lawyer, LLC, for Tiya Support Services, LLC, the intervenor. John R. Lockard, Esq., David Zhai, Esq., and Jason H. Shippy, 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 Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of past performance is denied where the agency evaluated the proposals in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Avalon Contracting, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Tacoma, Washington, protests the award of a contract to Tiya Support Services, LLC, a small business of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9123624R4005, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for preventive and demand maintenance repair services. Avalon asserts that the agency improperly evaluated offerors’ past performance. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on March 13, 2024, as a small business set-aside, seeking to award a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a 6-month base period and four 1-year option periods. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 2, 4. The solicitation sought proposals for preventive and demand maintenance repair services for the Department of Defense Education Activity facilities at Fort Campbell in Kentucky. Id. at 13.[1] The RFP contemplated making the award on a best-value tradeoff basis, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, and considering the following evaluation factors: technical approach, past performance, and price. Id. at 167. As relevant here, for past performance, the RFP instructed offerors to provide up to five “example projects or contracts,” performed within the last ten years, demonstrating “experience similar in size and scope and complexity to the work anticipated under this solicitation.” Id. at 159. Offerors were also advised that “[t]he experience of your proposed subcontractors on example projects will not be considered in the evaluation of Past Performance.” Id. at 160. The solicitation further provided that: If the Offeror is comprised of more than one member via a teaming agreement, joint venture (JV) agreement, or other appropriate instrument, relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Offeror as the proposed collective. If the proposed collective does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted for the constituent members other than subcontractors. Id. Finally, the solicitation provided, in bold, that offerors were required to: address any previously unaddressed adverse past performance issues, with respect to all projects or contracts performed within the last ten (10) years, for which the Offeror, a member, or proposed subcontractor was issued a Cure Notice, Show Cause, Termination for Default or ‘adverse past performance.’ Id. at 161. Adverse past performance was defined as “past performance information that supports a less than [s]atisfactory rating on any evaluation pertaining to a submitted project or other project for which a record of a past performance . . . may be retrieved.” Id. The agency received six timely proposals in response to the RFP, including proposals from Avalon and Tiya Support Services. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) ¶ 14. Avalon submitted five past performance references, including three projects it performed as a prime, and two projects that were performed by BryMak & Associates, a firm described as a “teaming partner” and “subcontractor” in a teaming agreement submitted with Avalon’s proposal. Resp. to Req. for Add’l Briefing, exh. 1, Teaming Agreement at 1; see also COS ¶ 15; AR, Tab 9, Avalon’s Proposal at 8-16. During the evaluation of the protester’s past performance, the agency found the projects performed by Avalon were recent and relevant.[2] AR, Tab 11, Redacted Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) Report at 40. The agency did not, however, evaluate the two contracts performed by BryMak because the agency concluded that BryMak would be performing as a subcontractor to Avalon. Id.