Centerline Logistics Corporation (HTC71125RW001)

B-423838,B-423838.2 Jan 07, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Centerline Logistics Corporation of Seattle, Washington, protests the award of a contract to Vane Line Bunkering, LLC, of Baltimore, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HTC71125-R-W001, issued by the United States (U.S.) Transportation Command, for fuel transportation services. Centerline challenges the agency’s past/present performance evaluation, argues that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions, and asserts the agency’s best-value tradeoff is flawed. Protest at 1-2. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Centerline Logistics Corporation File: B-423838; B-423838.2 Date: January 7, 2026 Lawrence P. Block, Esq., Bryant Gardner, Esq., Elizabeth Leavy, Esq., and Michael Hill, Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP, for the protester. Jayna M. Rust, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for the intervenor. Isabelle Cutting, Esq., Hector RiveraHernandez, Esq., Stephen W. Adamsky, Esq.,Todd P. Federici, Esq., and W. Craig Mullen, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Janis R. Millete, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of offerors' past/present performance is denied where it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. 2. Protest that the agency did not conduct meaningful discussions by failing to address the relevance of the protester's past/present performance is denied. The agency did not identify any deficiencies or significant weaknesses based on its evaluation of the relevance of the protester's past/present performance therefore the agency was not required to raise the relevance of the protester's past/present performance during discussions. 3. Protest that the agency engaged in disparate treatment in evaluating past/present performance is denied where the record shows that the difference in the evaluation is the result of differences in the proposals. 4. Protest that agency's best-value tradeoff decision was unreasonable is denied where we find the agency's underlying evaluation to be reasonable. DECISION Centerline Logistics Corporation of Seattle, Washington, protests the award of a contract to Vane Line Bunkering, LLC, of Baltimore, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HTC71125-R-W001, issued by the United States (U.S.) Transportation Command, for fuel transportation services. Centerline challenges the agency's past/present performance evaluation, argues that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions, and asserts the agency's best-value tradeoff is flawed. Protest at 1-2. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on March 4, 2025, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 1; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2.[1] The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. RFP at 3-22, 68; COS at 2. The contract will provide transportation of Department of Defense-owned bulk jet fuel, marine diesel, and commercial fuel between various ports by tug and barge.[2] AR, Tab 4, PWS at 4. Award was to be made on the basis of a best-value, performance-price tradeoff considering five factors: (1) business proposal; (2) technical capability; (3) past/present performance; (4) price; and (5) small business utilization.[3] RFP at 44. The RFP established that past/present performance will be evaluated approximately equal to price; the business proposal and technical capability subfactors; and small business utilization factor will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Id. Price would be evaluated but not rated and all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, would be approximately equal to price. Id. The agency received two proposals, from the awardee and protester. Both offerors' proposals received ratings of acceptable for the business, technical capability, and small business utilization factors. AR, Tab 43, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 2. As relevant here, the differences in the offerors' past/present performance ratings and overall price were as follows:   Centerline Vane Past/Present Performance Satisfactory Confidence Substantial Confidence Price $202,908,858.22 $203,300,742.22 AR, Tab 41, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report at 8; AR, Tab 43, SSDD at 1-2. Based on Vane's superior past/present performance and the small difference in price, the agency selected Vane for award. AR, Tab 43, SSDD at 2.