SRM Group, LLC (RFP W912JF25RA001)

B-423695 Sep 25, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SRM Group, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Virginia Beach, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to BryMak Associates, Inc., an SDVOSB of Clarksville, Tennessee, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912JF-25-R-A001, issued by the Department of the Army for lodging and transportation services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of the awardee's past performance was unreasonable and resulted in a flawed best-value determination. 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: SRM Group, LLC File: B-423695 Date: September 25, 2025 Thomas K. David, Esq., and Lewis Rhodes, Esq., Reston Law Group, LLP, for the protester. Richard W. Arnholt, Esq., Sylvia Yi, Esq., and Adam R. Briscoe, Esq., Bass Berry & Sims, PLC, for BryMak & Associates, Inc., the intervenor. Robert B. Neill, Esq., Major Joseph A. Seaton, Jr., and Lieutenant Colonel Anthony V. Lenze, Department of the Army, for the agency. Suresh S. Boodram, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the evaluation of the awardee's past performance is denied where the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency performed a flawed best-value determination is denied where the agency's tradeoff was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION SRM Group, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Virginia Beach, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to BryMak Associates, Inc., an SDVOSB of Clarksville, Tennessee, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912JF-25-R-A001, issued by the Department of the Army for lodging and transportation services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of the awardee's past performance was unreasonable and resulted in a flawed best-value determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 3, 2025, the agency issued the RFP for lodging and transportation services for the National Guard Professional Education Center (PEC) at Camp Robinson in North Little Rock, Arkansas. Agency Report (AR), Tab 17, RFP amend. No. 4 at 1; Tab 14, Second Amended Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1.[1] Specifically, the contractor will be responsible for providing front desk services, housekeeping, laundry services, management of furniture and furnishings, pest control, custodial building and grounds maintenance, and transportation of students and guests staying in PEC lodging, as well as those who are billeted off-post. AR, Tab 14, Second Amended PWS at 1. The RFP, which the agency amended four times, was issued under Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) part 12 using the procedures of FAR part 15. AR, Tab 17, RFP amend. No. 4 at 10; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1-2. The RFP contemplated issuance of an SDVOSB set-aside, fixed-price contract with a 10-month period of performance and four 1-year options. AR, Tab 17, RFP amend. No. 4 at 1, 3, 12. The RFP provided that award would be made on a best value tradeoff basis considering a number of price and non-price factors: The Government intends to award to the offeror whose proposal receives the highest technical rating, provided that the offeror's proposed price is determined to be fair and reasonable using FAR 15 procedures. Technical is the most important factor, followed by Past Performance, and then Cost. The Government will select the offeror whose proposal demonstrates the highest overall value, considering the relative importance of these factors. It is the government's intent to award without discussions. Id. at 10. The RFP advised offerors that the agency “reserves the right to make award based upon the [c]ost/[p]rice factor in the event that the [t]echnical and [p]ast [p]erformance evaluation results of all the offerors' proposals are substantially the same.” Id. The technical factor included three subfactors: management plan; transition plan; and experience.[2] Id. at 12-13. Only the past performance factor is directly relevant to the issues presented in this protest. As to past performance, offerors were to provide information for between two to five “recent and relevant” past performance contracts.[3] AR, Tab 17, RFP amend. No. 4 at 8. The RFP specifically contemplated that references could be submitted for the offeror or proposed subcontractors. See id. (“Organize [past performance] information by your company first, followed by each proposed subcontractor (alphabetical order).”).