SGL-HCI Joint Venture (SHJV) ) (W519TC-23-R-0088)

B-423364 Apr 28, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SGL-HCI Joint Venture (SHJV), a small, disadvantaged business JV of Quantico, Virginia, protests the issuance of a basic ordering agreement (BOA) order to Red River Science and Technology, LLC (RRST), under request for proposals (RFP) No. W519TC-23-R-0088, issued by the Department of the Army for logistics support services. The protester challenges the Army's evaluation of SHJV's past performance, asserting the evaluation had been "tainted" by false negative information about SHJV's performance on a prior BOA order. Protest at 14. We dismiss the protest because the subject matter of the protest, specifically the Army's evaluation and source selection decision under RFP No. W519TC-23-R-0088, currently is pending before a court of competent jurisdiction. 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: SGL-HCI Joint Venture File: B-423364 Date: April 28, 2025 Jerry A. Miles, Esq., Deale Services, LLC, for the protester. Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is dismissed where matter involved is the subject of litigation before a court of competent jurisdiction. DECISION SGL-HCI Joint Venture (SHJV), a small, disadvantaged business JV of Quantico, Virginia, protests the issuance of a basic ordering agreement (BOA) order to Red River Science and Technology, LLC (RRST), under request for proposals (RFP) No. W519TC-23-R-0088, issued by the Department of the Army for logistics support services. The protester challenges the Army’s evaluation of SHJV’s past performance, asserting the evaluation had been “tainted” by false negative information about SHJV’s performance on a prior BOA order. Protest at 14. We dismiss the protest because the subject matter of the protest, specifically the Army’s evaluation and source selection decision under RFP No. W519TC-23-R-0088, currently is pending before a court of competent jurisdiction. BACKGROUND On July 19, 2024, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation part 15, the Army issued the solicitation to holders of the agency’s Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) BOAs. Protest exh. 1, RPF at 1-2; Req. for Dismissal at 1.[1] The solicitation sought proposals for the provision of logistics support services, including maintenance, supply, and transportation support services, at Fort Knox, Kentucky. RFP at 2. The solicitation provided for issuance of a single hybrid order with both cost-plus-fixed-fee and fixed-price elements consisting of a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. Id. The solicitation established that award would be made on a best‑value basis, considering the following three evaluation factors: (1) technical; (2) past performance; and (3) cost/price. Id. Specifically, the solicitation set forth that award would be made to the offeror “determined to be the lowest evaluated (fair and reasonable) priced proposal that is determined Technically Acceptable with Substantial Confidence in Past Performance.” Id. The Army received five timely proposals, including those submitted by the protester, SHJV, and the awardee, RRST. Req. for Dismissal at 2. In accordance with the award methodology specified in the solicitation, the source selection authority (SSA) “determined that RRST is the Offeror whose Technically Acceptable proposal represents the lowest Total Evaluated Price with a Substantial Confidence Past Performance Rating.” Protest exh. 3, Source Selection Decision Document at 9. The SSA found Red River’s price fair and reasonable as well as realistic for the work to be performed and selected Red River’s proposal for award in the amount of $68,056,924.33. Id. This protest followed. DISCUSSION The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of SHJV’s past performance. Pursuant to section 21.11 of our Bid Protest Regulations, the Army requests dismissal of SHJV’s protest because “the solicitation at issue in SHJV’s GAO protest is the subject of litigation before a court of competent jurisdiction.” Req. for Dismissal at 1. The protester opposes dismissal. Resp. to Req. for Dismissal at 1. For the reasons explained below, we find that dismissal is appropriate here. The Two Protests The solicitation stated the agency would “assess the contract references provided in the Offeror’s task order proposal to date, and other information available from sources other than those identified by the Offeror.” RFP at 54. The solicitation provided detailed instructions establishing the formatting and specifying the type of content to be included in offerors’ past performance references. Id. generally at 41‑45.