Enviremedial Services, Inc. (W912HP25R1000)

B-423552,B-423552.2 Aug 28, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Enviremedial Services, Inc. (ESI), a small business of Oceanside, California, protests the award of a contract to BryMak & Associates, Inc., a small business of Clarksville, Tennessee, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HP25R1000, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), for preventative maintenance, repair work, and other facilities services at locations across Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the awardee's past performance and price as well as the resulting source selection decision. We sustain the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Enviremedial Services, Inc. File: B-423552; B-423552.2 Date: August 28, 2025 Anuj Vohra, Esq., Isaac D. Schabes, Esq., and Emily P. Golchini, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Lucas T. Hanback, Esq., Jules L. Szanton, Esq., and Timothy A. Wieroniey, Esq., Rogers Joseph O'Donnell, PC, for BryMak & Associates, the intervenor. Brian P. Nutter, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging that awardee’s pricing is unbalanced is dismissed where the protester fails to credibly allege that one or more of the awardee’s prices was overstated. 2. Protest challenging agency’s past performance evaluation is sustained where aspects of the agency’s relevancy evaluation were unreasonable or not sufficiently documented. 3. Protest challenging agency’s best‑value tradeoff is sustained where the tradeoff failed to adequately compare proposals and was based on an unreasonable and inadequately documented past performance evaluation. DECISION Enviremedial Services, Inc. (ESI), a small business of Oceanside, California, protests the award of a contract to BryMak & Associates, Inc., a small business of Clarksville, Tennessee, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HP25R1000, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), for preventative maintenance, repair work, and other facilities services at locations across Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s past performance and price as well as the resulting source selection decision. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND On February 10, 2025, the Corps issued the RFP as a small business set‑aside in accordance with the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, seeking proposals to provide preventative maintenance, repair work, and other facilities services at 18 sites in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina in support of the United States Army Reserve’s 81st Readiness Division. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 1, 3; AR, Tab 9, Performance Work Statement at 1, 6, 157.[1] The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed‑price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a 12‑month base period and four 12‑month option periods. RFP at 3; Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1. The solicitation provided for the contract to be awarded to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the agency, considering price and two non-price factors, understanding of the work and past performance. RFP at 70. The solicitation stated that, for the purposes of the best-value tradeoff, the non-price factors, when combined, were “approximately equal in importance to price.” Id. (emphasis removed). The solicitation explained that such proposals “must include a narrative that explains the major or critical aspects of the work to be performed by each team member.” Id. at 71. The agency was to evaluate proposals under the past performance factor by assessing the relevance and quality of the offerors’ past performance. Id. at 74‑76. The RFP instructed offerors to submit a minimum of three, but no more than five, relevant past performance contracts. Id. at 74. The RFP mandated that a past performance reference would only be considered relevant if it was awarded to an offeror, or its team member, as a prime contractor.[2] Id. at 72. The solicitation stated that each submitted contract would be evaluated to confirm its relevancy. Id. at 74. In evaluating relevance, the agency was to consider how similar the contract’s service, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel, and extent of subcontracting or teaming were to the instant requirement. Id. at 75. The agency was to assign each proposal a relevancy rating of very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant.[3] Id. at 76. The solicitation provided that the agency would then perform a past performance confidence assessment considering “how well the contractor performed” on its referenced contracts. Id.