RoadHero LLC (W912ER25R0034)

B-423648 Jul 30, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights TYD Services (TYD), of Doha, Qatar, protests the award of a contract to Rahman Group, Inc., of Doha, Qatar, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912ER25R0034, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), for the lease of sport utility vehicles and related services at locations within the U.S. Central Command Qatar area of responsibility. The protester challenges the agency's determination that TYD's proposal was unacceptable and ineligible for award. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: TYD Services File: B-423648 Date: July 30, 2025 Jessica Tal, for the protester. Megan O. Jorns, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Michelle Litteken, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. DECISION TYD Services (TYD), of Doha, Qatar, protests the award of a contract to Rahman Group, Inc., of Doha, Qatar, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912ER25R0034, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), for the lease of sport utility vehicles and related services at locations within the U.S. Central Command Qatar area of responsibility. The protester challenges the agency’s determination that TYD’s proposal was unacceptable and ineligible for award. We deny the protest.[1] BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on April 18, 2025, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, seeking a contractor to provide 12 mid-size, non-tactical sport utility vehicles and related services. Req. for Dismissal at 2; Req. for Dismissal, exh. 10, Award Determination at 1. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract with a 1-year period of performance. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 2, RFP at 4. TYD is providing these services as the incumbent contractor. Protest at 1; Req. for Dismissal, exh. 8, Technical Evaluation Report at 4-5. The solicitation provided that award would be made using a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis considering two factors--technical and price. RFP at 69-70; Req. for Dismissal, exh. 3, Combined Synopsis/Solicitation at 1. The RFP stated that the agency intended to evaluate proposals and make award without holding discussions with offerors. RFP at 64. Relevant here, for the technical factor, the RFP directed offerors to provide “information regarding the vehicle type, make, model, and specifications being offered [for] meeting the requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement [(PWS)].” RFP at 67. Additionally, the RFP stated that a proposal would be deemed acceptable if it met five technical criteria, including confirmation of the offeror’s understanding of and ability to comply with the PWS requirements. Id. at 69. As also relevant here, for the price factor, the RFP instructed offerors to submit proposed pricing using a pricing worksheet included with the solicitation. RFP at 67. The pricing worksheet included columns for offerors to provide pricing per vehicle on a daily and monthly basis. Id. The RFP stated that the agency would evaluate five aspects of price, including whether the offeror priced all aspects of the work to be performed and whether the pricing worksheet was complete. Id. at 70. The agency received proposals from TYD, Rahman Group, and 25 other offerors prior to the June 5, 2025 submission deadline. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 10, Award Decision at 1. The Corps evaluated TYD’s proposal and found it ineligible for award. Specifically, the Corps evaluated TYD’s technical proposal and found the firm did not provide information regarding the vehicle type, make, model, and specifications for the vehicles proposed for performance, and TYD did not provide written confirmation that it understood and would comply with the PWS requirements.[2] Req. for Dismissal, exh. 8, Technical Evaluation Report at 4-5. Accordingly, the agency rated TYD’s proposal as technically unacceptable. Id. at 5. The Corps also evaluated TYD’s price proposal and found that TYD did not complete the RFP’s pricing worksheet, and its proposal was therefore incomplete.[3] Req. for Dismissal, exh. 9, Price Evaluation Report at 24. The agency evaluated Rahman Group’s proposal and determined that: it was technically acceptable; the proposed pricing of $158,400 was complete, reasonable, and balanced; and it offered the lowest price of the technically acceptable proposals. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 8, Technical Evaluation Report at 4; Req. for Dismissal, exh. 9, Price Evaluation Report at 16; Req. for Dismissal, exh. 10, Award Decision at 3.