DSC-EMI II, LLC (N6945025R0002)

B-424177,B-424177.2 Mar 30, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DSC-EMI II, LLC, of Dunn, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to FL GCR JV, LLC, of Silver Spring, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6945025R0002, issued by the Department of the Navy for multi-function support services at the Marine Corps Logistics Base (MCLB) in Albany, Georgia. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated technical proposals. 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: DSC-EMI II, LLC File: B-424177; B-424177.2 Date: March 30, 2026 J. Alex Ward, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Caitlin A. Crujido, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. J. Chris White, Esq., Clark Hill, PLC, for FL GCR JV, LLC, the intervenor. Javier E. Gonzalez, Esq., and J. Alexandra Fitzmaurice, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Heather Weiner, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the record demonstrates that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation and procurement law. DECISION DSC-EMI II, LLC, of Dunn, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to FL GCR JV, LLC, of Silver Spring, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6945025R0002, issued by the Department of the Navy for multi-function support services at the Marine Corps Logistics Base (MCLB) in Albany, Georgia. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated technical proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Navy issued the RFP on November 19, 2024, under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, Conformed RFP at 60, 76[1]. The solicitation, which was set aside for small businesses, sought the award of a single fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity facilities support contract with a base term of 6 months and four 1-year option periods. Id. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering cost and four non-price factors: (1) corporate experience; (2) technical approach; (3) safety; and (4) past performance. Id. at 123-124. The corporate experience, technical approach, and safety factors were of equal importance. Id. at 123. The agency was to assign each of those factors an adjectival rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. Based on its evaluation of those three factors, the Navy was to assess proposals an overall technical rating using those same adjectival ratings.[2] Id. at 21. When combined, the corporate experience, technical approach, and safety factors were of equal importance to the past performance factor. Id. at 123. The four non-price factors, when combined, were approximately equal to price. Id. As relevant here, the protest concerns the agency's evaluation of proposals under the technical approach factor, which contained two requirements. Under the first requirement, offerors were to provide an organizational chart identifying their proposed on-site organization, on-site staff, and corporate staff, along with a narrative describing their lines of management authority, supervision, span of control, and accountability. Id. at 127. The Navy was to evaluate the organizational chart and the narrative on “the degree to which the offeror demonstrates an effective and resource efficient approach to management of their workforce.” Id. Under the second requirement, offerors were to provide proposed labor hours by submitting a completed attachment JL-1 labor hours spreadsheet, along with a narrative explaining the basis of estimate (BOE) for each technical specification and labor classification. Id. The agency was to evaluate the labor hours and narrative to determine how well the offeror's approach demonstrated a reasonable understanding of all RFP requirements and the labor quantities and skills needed to successfully perform the requirements. Id. at 128. Eleven firms, including the protester and the awardee, submitted proposals. AR, Tab 8, Competitive Range Determination at 755. After initial evaluations, all proposals contained at least one deficiency and were rated unacceptable. Id. at 756. The Navy established a competitive range of the eight highest-rated offerors, including the protester and the awardee. Id. The agency conducted discussions with those eight offerors and requested final proposal revisions (FPRs).