Guardian DB Services, LLC (1240LU25R0008)

B-423692 Sep 24, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Guardian DB Services, LLC (Guardian), a small business of Mobile, Alabama, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1240LU25R0008, issued by the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, for road, bridge, and related civil construction projects in the Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Region 2. Guardian asserts that the agency improperly found that its proposal lacked required information. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Guardian DB Services, LLC File: B-423692 Date: September 24, 2025 Johnny Johnson for the protester. Adam Humphries, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION Guardian DB Services, LLC (Guardian), a small business of Mobile, Alabama, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1240LU25R0008, issued by the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, for road, bridge, and related civil construction projects in the Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Region 2. Guardian asserts that the agency improperly found that its proposal lacked required information. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplated the award of at least ten indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts for a total 5-year ordering period for construction projects.[1] AR, Exh. 1, RFP at 1, 6-8. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering five factors: (1) experience and capabilities; (2) geographic awareness and familiarity; (3) organization and management; (4) past performance; and (5) price. Id. at 49-51. The non-price factors were of equal importance, and, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. at 49. As relevant here, under the organization and management factor, the solicitation provided for the evaluation of “the overall organizational structure and résumés for key personnel as submitted with focus on experience and expertise in work within the scope of the [multiple award task order contracts (MATOC)].” Id. at 50. The RFP instructed offerors to submit “an organizational chart and/or summary of the overall company organizational structure, from principle/ownership level to field level” and “provide résumés for staff members for each of the following key positions[:]” project manager, site superintendent, quality control manager, and safety officer. Id. at 43. The Forest Service received proposals from 36 offerors, including the protester. AR, Exh. 5, SSD at 1. The agency assigned Guardian's proposal the following ratings: Factor Guardian Experience and Capabilities Confidence Geographic Awareness and Familiarity Confidence Organization and Management Low Confidence Past Performance High Confidence AR, Exh. 6, Guardian Evaluation Sheets at 2-5. Under the organization and management factor at issue in this protest, the Forest Service explained that Guardian's rating of low confidence was warranted because its proposal included a “general summary of background” experience rather than the required résumés. Id. at 4. The agency also observed that Guardian did not identify either a safety officer or a quality control manager in the proposal. Id. Last, the agency noted that the project manager was not specifically identified, but that the “[o]wner has a role in ensuring projects are successful and the director of operations notes project management skills.” Id. The agency selected 26 firms for MATOC awards. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1. Each awardee received a rating of confidence or higher for each of the non-price factors.[2] Id. On June 27, 2025, the Forest Service notified Guardian that it had not received an award. Protest exh. Unsuccessful Offeror Letter. The agency advised Guardian that its “proposal lacked the information required for Factor 3, Organization and Management” because it did not submit résumés for any individuals. Id. Guardian requested a debriefing, which the agency provided over the phone and stated “if only you had included résumés.” Comments at 4. This protest followed. DISCUSSION The protester makes two challenges to the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the organization and management factor. Guardian argues that the contents of its proposal met the solicitation's “vague” requirements for key personnel résumés.[3] Dkt. No. 1 (comments to protest filing). Guardian also contends that “any changes to personnel after award are material,” which is a challenge to the absence of solicitation language restricting personnel substitution after award. Id.