Horizons Youth Services (1605JW-24-R-00008)

B-423202 Mar 07, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Horizons Youth Services (Horizons), a small business located in Rockingham, Virginia, protests its elimination from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1605JW-24-R-00008, issued by the Department of Labor (DOL), Job Corps Acquisition Services, for operation and management services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably rejected its proposal for failing to comply with the solicitation's proposal preparation instructions. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Horizons Youth Services File: B-423202 Date: March 7, 2025 Amy Laderberg O’Sullivan, Esq., and Cherie J. Owen, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Jose Otero, Esq., and Ebtihaj K. Hana, Esq., Department of Labor, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging protester’s elimination from the competition is denied where the agency reasonably determined that its technical proposal failed to comply with the solicitation’s font type and page limitation requirements thereby giving the protester an unfair competitive advantage. DECISION Horizons Youth Services (Horizons), a small business located in Rockingham, Virginia, protests its elimination from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1605JW-24-R-00008, issued by the Department of Labor (DOL), Job Corps Acquisition Services, for operation and management services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably rejected its proposal for failing to comply with the solicitation’s proposal preparation instructions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued as a set-aside for small business concerns on September 27, 2024, for a contractor to operate and manage the Cascades Job Corps Center located in Sedro Woolley, Washington. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFP at 10;[1] COS at 2. The RFP contemplates award of a single contract with fixed-price, fixed-price with price adjustment, and cost-reimbursable contract line items, with a 5-year period of performance. RFP at 10; AR, Exh. 5, RFP amend. 4 at 2. The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal conformed to the solicitation requirements and offered the best value to the government, considering the following five evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical approach; (2) staff resources; (3) staff compensation plan; (4) past performance; and (5) business management plan (price). RFP at 112. In addition, the RFP stated that the agency reserved the right to make award without discussions and advised that the agency might waive informalities and minor irregularities in the offers received. Id. As discussed further below, however, the solicitation also warned offerors that failure to comply with the solicitation’s proposal preparation instructions could result in the proposal’s elimination from the competition. Offerors were instructed to provide separate proposal volumes corresponding to each evaluation factor and the solicitation provided specific instructions for the content of each proposal volume. RFP at 95, 96. For example, with respect to the technical approach volume,[2] offerors were to provide a narrative discussion which addressed seven requirements: (1) outreach and admissions; (2) career pathways; (3) academic and career technical training; (4) career counseling, readiness and transition; (5) role in the community and linkages to key partners; (6) facility management, safety and security, and positive center culture; and (7) continuous improvement. Id. at 96. The RFP provided detailed proposal preparation instructions in section L of the RFP and warned that “[f]ailure . . . to follow the required proposal format . . . may result in a determination that the offeror’s proposal is ‘Unacceptable’ and may be removed from the competition.” RFP at 92-93. Relevant here, the solicitation imposed a 50-page limitation for volume 1, technical approach; a 10-page limitation for volume 2, staff resources; and a 5-page limitation for volume 4, past performance narrative.[3] Id. at 93. Under the header, Proposal Format, the solicitation established that proposal volumes “shall be formatted” in relevant part, as follows: (1) the use of 8.5 x 11 inch paper with margins of at least 1 inch; and (2) the use of font type Times New Roman, Arial, Garamond or Calibri,[4] with a font size of 12 point or larger, with the exception of graphics, charts, and tables, which were required to be 10 point or larger. Id. Finally, the solicitation cautioned that offerors “must not exceed the page limitations” and any “pages that exceed the page limitations . . . will not be read or considered in the evaluation.” Id.