Major Contracting Services, Inc. (W9124M24R0016)

B-423191 Mar 04, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Major Contracting Services, Inc. (Major), a small business of Colorado Springs, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to K&H Environmental Services (K&H), a small business of East Dublin, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124M24R0016, issued by the Department of the Army for portable chemical latrines (PCL) and hand washing stations (HWS) at Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia. The protester challenges the agency's decision to award the contract to K&H. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Major Contracting Services, Inc. File: B-423191 Date: March 4, 2025 Steven Wald for the protester. Major Katharine M. Calderon, Department of the Army, for the agency. Raymond Richards, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest grounds alleging bias, procedural errors, and improper disclosure of information are dismissed where the protester’s allegations are based on speculation and are legally and factually insufficient to establish valid bases of protest. 2. Protest challenging the contracting officer’s affirmative determination of responsibility is dismissed where the allegation does not meet the exceptions to trigger a review under our Bid Protest Regulations. DECISION Major Contracting Services, Inc. (Major), a small business of Colorado Springs, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to K&H Environmental Services (K&H), a small business of East Dublin, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124M24R0016, issued by the Department of the Army for portable chemical latrines (PCL) and hand washing stations (HWS) at Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia. The protester challenges the agency’s decision to award the contract to K&H.[1] We dismiss the protest. Background The Army issued the RFP on June 26, 2024, as a small business set‑aside under the commercial products and commercial services procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12. Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, Conformed RFP at 1, 153. The Army sought proposals for all personnel, equipment, material, supplies, facilities, transportation, tools, supervision, and other items and non‑personal services necessary to provide PCLs and HWSs at Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield. Id. at 114. The solicitation contemplated the award of an indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity contract where fixed‑price task orders would be issued under the resulting contract. Id. at 6‑55, 102. Award would be made on a lowest‑price, technically acceptable basis considering three factors: technical; past performance; and price. Id. at 153. Under the past performance factor, proposals would be rated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. Id. at 154. The acceptability rating would consider the recency and relevancy of offerors’ past performance. Id. at 154‑155. The solicitation stated that offerors previously “terminated for cause or default on any Government contract or any private sector contract for unsatisfactory performance within the last three years shall receive an Unacceptable rating.” Id. at 155. Proposals were due by July 31.[2] Id. at 1. The Army received multiple proposals by the due date, including proposals from Major and K&H. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3. In short, K&H’s proposal was found to be the lowest‑priced, technically acceptable proposal.[3] AR, Tab 11, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 5, 8‑9; COS at 8. On September 30, Major received an apparent unsuccessful offeror notice. AR, Tab 12, Email from Army to Major; AR, Tab 13, Apparent Unsuccessful Offeror Notice. In accordance with FAR section 15.503(a)(2), Major was informed that it was not the apparent successful offeror, K&H was the apparent successful offeror, the government would not consider subsequent proposal revisions, and that no response was required unless a basis existed to challenge the size status or small business status of the apparent successful offeror. AR, Tab 13, Apparent Unsuccessful Offeror Notice. On October 3, Major filed an agency‑level protest. AR, Tab 15, Agency-Level Protest at 1. Major argued that K&H improperly claimed to be an economically disadvantaged woman‑owned small business (EDWOSB), challenged K&H’s small business status generally, and challenged the agency’s evaluation of K&H’s proposal under the past performance factor. Id. at 1‑4. Regarding the past performance challenge, Major argued that K&H was actually another company, A‑OK Portable Services (A‑OK) of Macon, Georgia, which previously held a government contract for PCL services at Fort Stewart that was terminated by the government for cause, and that K&H improperly failed to disclose the termination. Id. at 3‑4.