Diversified Maintenance Systems, Inc. (N62473-24-R-2701)

B-423945,B-423945.2 Jan 29, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Diversified Maintenance Systems, Inc. (DMS), a small business of Sandy, Utah, protests the award of a contract to Paradigm Mechanical Corporation (PMS), a small business of Santee, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62473-24-R- 2701, issued by the Department of the Navy, for commercial and institutional building construction projects at various locations, to include Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California, and Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, California. The protester challenges the evaluation of its proposal and the agency's best-value tradeoff 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: Diversified Maintenance Systems, Inc. File: B-423945; B-423945.2 Date: January 29, 2026 John C. Dulske, Esq., and Alyssa Isenberg, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC, for the protester. David S. Demian, Esq., and Scott M. Bennett, Esq., Finch, Thornton & Baird, LLP, for Paradigm Mechanical Corporation, the intervenor. Deana R. Jaeger, Esq., and Erin L. Hernandez, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Challenge to the agency's evaluation of the protester's past performance is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest alleging errors in the agency's evaluation of the protester's price is denied where the agency's evaluation was reasonable, and the agency had no duty to seek clarification regarding alleged errors in the protester's proposal. DECISION Diversified Maintenance Systems, Inc. (DMS), a small business of Sandy, Utah, protests the award of a contract to Paradigm Mechanical Corporation (PMS), a small business of Santee, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62473-24-R-2701, issued by the Department of the Navy, for commercial and institutional building construction projects at various locations, to include Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California, and Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, California.  The protester challenges the evaluation of its proposal and the agency's best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on August 8, 2024, as a women-owned small business set‑aside, contemplating the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) job order contract (JOC)--where orders would be placed on a fixed-price basis‑‑with a 2-year based period of performance and two 3-year option periods, for construction services at several locations, to include Camp Pendleton and Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach.  Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFP at 7.[1]  The solicitation advised that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering five factors:  (1) ability to manage multiple simultaneous projects; (2) experience; (3) past performance; (4) safety; and (5) cost.  Id. at 19.  The RFP explained that the experience and safety factors were of equal importance, and when combined were of equal importance to past performance.  Id.  The solicitation further provided that the experience, past performance, and safety factors, combined, were approximately equal to price.[2] Id. Under the past performance factor, the solicitation advised that offerors should submit a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation for each project submitted under the experience factor. Id. at 25. If, however, a given project did not have a completed CPARS evaluation, offerors were to submit past performance questionnaires (PPQs) for those projects. Id. In addition, the RFP allowed offerors to “provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken” for projects offered under the experience factor and advised that offerors “may also address any adverse past performance issues.”  Id.  The agency would evaluate past performance to determine “how well the Offeror's team performed on relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 (Experience) and may also consider past performance on other relevant projects currently documented in known sources.” Id. The Navy would also “consider the recency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Contractor's performance.”  Id.  For the price factor, offerors were required to submit several items with their proposals. Id. at 29. As relevant here, each offeror was required to submit pre-priced, and non-pre-priced, coefficients for each performance location. Id. at 13-14.