Chaedrol GAO Protest Log 20240925: Amentum, Kropp, and Wilson 5 Service
Amentum Services, Inc. (B-422719, B-422719.2)
You should not care.
Category: Business licensing requirements
Date: September 20, 2024
URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-422719%2Cb-422719.2
Amentum Services, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, protested its exclusion from competition under task order request for proposals (TORFP) No. 19QMM‑24‑R‑0154 issued by the Department of State for support services in Iraq. The protester argued that the agency unreasonably excluded its proposal due to the absence of Iraq business licenses for two subcontractors and contended that the agency’s requirements had changed, necessitating an amendment to the TORFP.
Key issues revolved around the agency's evaluation of the Iraq business licenses and the alleged change in agency requirements. GAO found that the TORFP clearly mandated the submission of Iraq business licenses for subcontractors performing in Iraq. Amentum did not demonstrate that one of its subcontractors would not be operating in Iraq, leading GAO to uphold the agency's decision to exclude its proposal. Additionally, the protester’s claim regarding changes in requirements was countered by the agency's assertion that local laws necessitated the continuation of a local national hiring requirement.
The protest was denied as the GAO upheld the agency's evaluation process, because the agency acted within its discretion and followed established procedures.
Digest
1. Protest alleging that the agency unreasonably excluded the protester’s proposal from a task order competition for failure to submit Iraq business licenses for two subcontractors is denied where the agency reasonably concluded from the information provided in the proposal that one subcontractor would be performing services in Iraq and therefore that the protester was required to submit an Iraq business license for that subcontractor, and the protester consequently cannot demonstrate competitive prejudice with respect to the second subcontractor.
2. Protest that the agency improperly failed to amend the solicitation to remove a local national hiring requirement is denied where the agency states that it will continue to include the requirement because it is mandated by local law and the protester has not demonstrated that there has been a change in that law.
Kropp Holdings, Inc. (B-420857.8, B-420857.9)
You should not care.
Category: Evaluation and OCI plan
Date: August 28, 2024
URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-420857.8%2Cb-420857.9
Kropp Holdings, Inc. (KHI) protested the award of a contract to Associated Energy Group, LLC (AEG) under RFP No. SPE608-21-R-0203 for aviation into-plane Card transaction processing services issued by DOD’s Defense Logistics Agency. KHI's protest centers on the agency’s evaluation of AEG’s organizational conflict of interest (OCI) mitigation plan and claims that DLA unreasonably evaluated both KHI’s and AEG’s proposals.
The key issues in this protest include KHI's assertion that DLA did not adequately assess the potential impaired objectivity conflict of interest arising from AEG's dual role as a fuel supplier and AIR Card program operator. The protest also challenges DLA's overall evaluation of proposals under the nonprice factors, arguing that the agency's conclusions were not supported by sufficient evidence. GAO noted that it typically defers to the agency's judgment regarding its evaluations, provided they are conducted according to the stated criteria in the solicitation.
GAO sustained the protest in part, finding that the record lacked sufficient evidence to conclude that DLA reasonably considered the implications of AEG’s OCI mitigation plan on its technical capability approach. However, GAO denied other grounds related to the evaluation of proposals, emphasizing that the agency's overall evaluation was reasonable and followed proper procedures.
Digest
1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s organizational conflict of interest mitigation plan is denied where the record demonstrates the agency reasonably concluded the contractor and agency-proposed measures would sufficiently mitigate potential conflicts.
2. Protest is sustained where the record fails to demonstrate the agency reasonably considered the impact of the awardee’s proposed organizational conflict of interest mitigation plan on an aspect of the firm’s underlying non-price proposal.
3. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals under various non-price factors is denied where the record demonstrates the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.
Wilson 5 Service Company, Inc. (B-422670)
You should care.
Category: Discussions
Date: September 25, 2024
URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-422670
Wilson 5 Service Company, Inc., a small business from Kittery, Maine, filed a protest regarding RFQ #47PN0424Q0003 issued by GSA for complete facilities maintenance at 17 locations in Georgia. The protest centered on claims that the solicitation's criteria were unduly restrictive of competition. Wilson 5 objected to the requirement that vendors demonstrate prior experience at multiple facilities under a single contract and the stipulation of a minimum distance of 200 miles between facilities for those experiences to be deemed favorable.
Wilson 5 argued the evaluation criteria unfairly penalized vendors without a reasonable basis and limited competition by delaying the consideration of the most critical evaluation factor, the management plan, until a second phase. GAO's analysis emphasized the need for agencies to provide reasonable justifications for such restrictive terms. The agency's failure to adequately justify the criteria led to the conclusion that the solicitation was unduly restrictive.
The protest was sustained in part and denied in part.
GAO found that the agency did not provide sufficient rationale for penalizing vendors based on the geographical distance criteria and the requirement for experience under a single contract.
However, GAO upheld the agency's rationale for the two-phase evaluation scheme, indicating that it was reasonably related to GSA’s needs. This case underscores the importance of clear and justifiable evaluation criteria in solicitations. Agencies must carefully balance their requirements with the need to foster competition and avoid unnecessarily restrictive practices.
Digest
1. Protest that the solicitation is unduly restrictive of competition where the solicitation provides that the agency will automatically assess an unfavorable aspect to a quotation if a vendor’s prior experience examples do not meet certain criteria is sustained where the agency has not provided a reasonable basis or explanation for why vendors will be penalized if their prior experience does not meet these criteria.
2. Protest that the solicitation’s two-phase evaluation scheme limits competition where the most important evaluation factor is not considered until phase two is denied where the agency reasonably explained why the two-phase scheme is necessary to meet its needs.
More posts like this
