ASR International Corporation (W912EP24R0011)

B-423594,B-423594.2 Sep 02, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ASR International Corporation, a small business of Hauppauge, New York, protests the award of a contract to Radise International, L.C. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912EP24R0011, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Corps of Engineers, for comprehensive quality assurance services to support construction projects throughout the state of Florida. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals, resulting in a flawed source selection decision. 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: ASR International Corporation File: B-423594; B-423594.2 Date: September 2, 2025 J. Bradley Reaves, Esq., Kenneth M. Hyde, Esq., and Jacob D. Noe, Esq., Reaves GovCon Group, for the protester. James M. Zaleski, Esq., Sharon L. Shim, Esq., and Logan S. Grutchfield, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION ASR International Corporation, a small business of Hauppauge, New York, protests the award of a contract to Radise International, L.C. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912EP24R0011, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Corps of Engineers, for comprehensive quality assurance services to support construction projects throughout the state of Florida.[1] The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals, resulting in a flawed source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the subject solicitation on February 26, 2024, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. RFP at 2. The solicitation contemplated the award of an indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract for a base period of one year and four 12‑month option periods. Id. 62. The due date for proposals, as amended, was April 9, 2024. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 3. The solicitation provided for the evaluation of proposals based on the following factors: technical, past performance, and cost/price. RFP at 22. The technical factor consisted of the following subfactors: work execution management, contract management plan, and business experience. Id. Under the work execution management subfactor, offerors were to describe their plan to ensure quality, timely, and efficient performance of the full scope of contract requirements and detail how they would provide staffing during surge requirements. Id. at 23. Under the contract management plan subfactor, offerors were to provide an overview of their existing quality control system, describing their controls for meeting corporate quality control inspections and the procedures they would use for deficiency identification, correction, and control. Id. The solicitation also included a mock task order, and offerors were to describe their plans for accomplishing the order's requirements. Id. Under the business experience subfactor, offerors were to describe their corporate quality assurance/quality control services experience and how it meets the requirements of the solicitation. Id. at 23‑24. Based on the subfactor evaluation findings, the agency would assign proposals a combined technical/risk rating under the technical factor of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable.[2] Id. at 24. Under the past performance factor, offerors were to submit up to five recent and relevant contracts for the prime contractor and each major subcontractor. Id. at 25. The agency would assign each reference a relevancy rating of very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant. Taking into account recency, relevancy, and quality of performance, it would then assign each offeror a past performance confidence rating of substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, neutral confidence, limited confidence, or no confidence. Id. at 25‑26. Under the cost/price factor, offerors were to submit a pricing schedule, a mock task order pricing schedule, and a proposal data sheet. Id. at 19. For the pricing schedule, the solicitation required offerors to provide labor hours for various labor categories for the base period and each option period. Id. at 19, 103-113. The solicitation provided that the agency would calculate total evaluated price by adding the total price for the base year and all options. Id. at 24.