Base Services of Athens, Inc. (N6883625R0005)

B-423783,B-423783.2 Dec 17, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Base Services of Athens, Inc., a small business of Chamblee, Georgia, protests the award of a contract to Crystal Enterprises, Inc., a small business of Glenn Dale, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68836-25-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, for food galley services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals, which resulted in an improper 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: Base Services of Athens, Inc. File: B-423783; B-423783.2 Date: December 17, 2025 Jayna M. Rust, Esq., Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., and Scott F. Lane, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for the protester. Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., and Winni Zhang, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for Crystal Enterprises, Inc., the intervenor. Courtney Hatcher, Department of the Navy, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Heather Weiner, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's past performance evaluation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest alleging that the agency committed evaluation errors is denied where the protester fails to demonstrate that, but for the evaluation errors, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award. DECISION Base Services of Athens, Inc., a small business of Chamblee, Georgia, protests the award of a contract to Crystal Enterprises, Inc., a small business of Glenn Dale, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68836-25-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, for food galley services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals, which resulted in an improper source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on April 9, 2025, as a set-aside for small businesses, subject to the Randolph Sheppard Act, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15.[1] Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFP at 2, 80.[2] The solicitation provided for the award of a fixed-price contract with a base period of one year, four 1‑year option periods, and a 6-month option to extend. Id. at 80. The solicitation sought an offeror to provide all personnel, management, items, and services necessary to perform attendant services, food preparation, and food production. Id. at 93. The due date for proposals, as amended, was May 13, 2025. AR, Exh. 2, RFP amend. 0001 at 2. The solicitation provided for the evaluation of proposals based on the following factors: technical capability, past performance, and price. RFP at 86. The technical capability factor, which is not at issue in this protest, consisted of the following subfactors: cleaning and housekeeping plan, quality control plan, training plan, and project manager. Id. Proposals would receive a rating of acceptable or unacceptable for each subfactor and the technical capability factor overall. Id. at 87. Any proposal that received a rating of unacceptable for any subfactor would be considered unacceptable overall. Id. Under the past performance factor, offerors were to provide up to three past performance questionnaires for their most recent and relevant past performance references. Id. at 83. The agency would evaluate each reference for recency and relevancy. Id. at 88. To be considered recent, the reference must have been ongoing or performed within the last three years from the date that the solicitation was issued. Id. For relevancy, the agency would evaluate the reference's similarity in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the requirements of the solicitation.[3] Id. The agency would assign proposals a rating of very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant under this factor.[4] Id. Last, the agency would assign a past performance confidence rating of substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown confidence.[5] Id. For price, the agency would evaluate pricing information for completeness and reasonableness. Id. at 89. The solicitation provided that the agency would conduct a tradeoff, award the contract to the proposal that represented the best value to the agency, and that the non-price evaluation factors, when combined, were approximately equal to price. Id. at 85, 91. Evaluation Results The agency received timely proposals from five offerors, including BSA and Crystal. AR, Exh. 7., Business Clearance Memorandum (BCM) at 45.