K&K JL Services, Inc. (FA480025R0009)

B-423367 May 07, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights K&K JL Services, Inc., a small business of Concord, California, challenges the terms and conditions of request for proposals (RFP) No. FA480025R0009, issued by the Department of the Air Force for grounds maintenance at Joint Base Langley-Eustis (JBLE), Virginia. The protester contends that the solicitation is unduly restrictive of competition. 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 redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: K&K JL Services, Inc. File: B-423367 Date: May 7, 2025 Samuel S. Finnerty, Esq., Ryan J. Boonstra, Esq., Christopher A. Jannace, Esq. and Kristine “Krissy” Callé, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Colonel Nina R. Padalino, Christian H. Robertson II, Esq., William M. Fuller, Esq., and Sean McCabe, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging solicitation provisions as unduly restrictive of competition is denied where the provisions are reasonably related to the agency’s requirements. DECISION K&K JL Services, Inc., a small business of Concord, California, challenges the terms and conditions of request for proposals (RFP) No. FA480025R0009, issued by the Department of the Air Force for grounds maintenance at Joint Base Langley-Eustis (JBLE), Virginia. The protester contends that the solicitation is unduly restrictive of competition. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 11, 2025, the Air Force issued the RFP as a total small business set-aside pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15. Agency Report (AR), Tab 9, RFP at 1.[1] The solicitation contemplates the award of a single fixed-price contract for grounds maintenance at JBLE with a base period of 8 months and two 1‑year option periods. Id. at 3-13, 73; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 5. JBLE consists of more than 2,000 acres of improved, semi-improved, and airfield grounds and over 1 million linear feet of edging and similar areas that require service. AR, Tab 24, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 3. K&K is the incumbent provider of the services, currently performing under a contract awarded in May 2024. Protest at 5. The RFP provides for award to be made on a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis, considering the following evaluation factors: (1) price; (2) technical; and (3) past performance. RFP at 73. The technical and past performance factors will be rated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. Id. at 74-75. With respect to past performance, the solicitation states that offerors “shall provide at least two (2) references . . . for recent past performance of similar size and scope requirements as detailed” in the PWS. Id. at 75. Here, the RFP defined relevant size of a past project as a contract “with a value of at least $1M per year.”[2] Id. Past performance will be evaluated as “acceptable” if, based “on the offeror’s performance record,” the agency has “a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort,” and “unacceptable” if the agency does not. Id. at 74. The solicitation provides that “an offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned” shall be determined to have a rating of unknown, which will be considered acceptable. Id. at 75. Proposals were due by March 7, and the agency received four proposals, including one from K&K. RFP at 1; COS at 7. K&K filed this protest of the solicitation prior to the closing date for receipt of proposals. DISCUSSION The protester challenges the solicitation’s past performance evaluation factor as unduly restrictive of competition. The protester does not object to the solicitation’s definitions of relevant past performance with respect to recency (within the past five years) or scope (similar depth and breadth of grounds maintenance). See RFP at 75. Instead, the protester focuses its challenge on two issues: (1) requiring two past performance references; and (2) defining relevant size as a project with a value of at least $1 million per year. Protest at 7. According to K&K, these requirements are unduly restrictive of competition because they effectively exclude a number of small businesses that are capable of the work.[3] Id.