SierTeK-Peerless JV LLC

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: SierTeK-Peerless JV LLC

File: B-422085; B-422085.2

Date: January 2, 2024

DIGEST

Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal is sustained where the record is insufficiently documented to demonstrate that the agency reasonably evaluated the prior experience evaluation factor in a manner consistent with the solicitation.

SierTeK-Peerless JV LLC, an 8(a) small business of Beavercreek, Ohio, protests the issuance of a task order to Strativia LLC, an 8(a) small business of Largo, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70T01023R7668N001, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for support services to maintain TSA’s property management program.[1] The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated Strativia’s proposal and improperly determined that it offered the best value to the agency.

We sustain the protest.

BACKGROUND

The agency issued the RFP pursuant to the fair opportunity source selection procedures of FAR subpart 16.5 to firms holding indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contracts under the General Services Administration’s One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) Governmentwide Acquisition Contract. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, Amended RFP at AR 0090.[2] The competition was open to OASIS 8(a) pool No.1 contract holders. COS at 2; Amended RFP at AR 0090. The RFP, which the agency amended once, sought proposals for technical and administrative property management support services to support the maintenance of the agency’s property management program. COS at 2; Amended RFP at AR 0093. The RFP contemplated issuance of a single task order with fixed‑price, time‑and‑materials, and cost‑reimbursement line items, with a 1‑year base period of performance (inclusive of a 2‑month transition period) and four 1‑year option periods, as well as a 6‑month option to extend services. Amended RFP at AR 0091‑0092, 0140, 0173.

The RFP provided for a best‑value tradeoff using five evaluation factors, which are listed in descending order of importance: prior experience; staffing approach; technical demonstration; technical scenarios; and price. Id. at AR 0173‑0174.

Relevant here, the RFP’s instructions with respect to prior experience directed offerors to provide a detailed description of prior efforts “where the [o]fferor provided property management support . . . of a similar size and scope as the TSA [p]roperty [m]anagement [p]rogram[,]” and, in part, to “[d]escribe the project’s size and scope, demonstrating how the work is similar to the requirements in the [p]roperty [m]anagement [performance work statement].” Id. at AR 0168‑0169. Correspondingly, the RFP’s evaluation criteria stated in part that the agency would “assess its level of confidence that the [o]fferor provided a detailed description of prior relevant experience examples where the [o]fferor provided property management support . . . of a similar size and scope as the TSA [p]roperty [m]anagement [p]rogram.” Id. at AR 0174. The agency would assign a rating of low, some, or high confidence to proposals under each of the non‑price factors, including the prior experience factor. Id. at AR 0173.

The protester and Strativia submitted the only proposals in response to the RFP. COS at 2. The agency evaluated those proposals as follows:

AR, Tab 10, Source Selection Authority (SSA) Decision Memorandum at AR 0478 (prices rounded to nearest dollar).

On September 26, 2023, the agency notified the protester that it had selected Strativia for receipt of the task order. AR, Tab 11, Unsuccessful Offeror Notification. On September 28, the agency provided the protester with a requested debriefing. AR, Tab 12, Debriefing Slides. This protest followed.[3]

DISCUSSION

The protester alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated Strativia’s proposal, resulting in an improper best‑value determination. Protest at 2‑5; Comments & Supp. Protest at 5‑8. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the agency failed to adequately document its evaluation of Strativia’s proposal under the prior experience factor and sustain the protest on that basis.[4]

It is a fundamental principle of federal procurement that an agency must evaluate proposals consistent with the terms of the solicitation and, while the evaluation of offerors’ proposals generally is a matter within the procuring agency’s discretion, our Office will question an agency’s evaluation where it is unreasonable, inconsistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria, or undocumented. Tantus Techs., Inc., B‑411608, B‑411608.3, Sept. 14, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 299 at 6; Vertex Aerospace, LLC, B‑420073, B‑420073.2, Nov. 23, 2021, 2022 CPD ¶ 5 at 9. It is well‑established that contracting agencies do not have the discretion to announce in the solicitation that they will use one evaluation plan, and then follow another. The Emergence Group, B‑404844.7, Feb. 29, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 133 at 7. Once offerors are informed of the criteria against which proposals will be evaluated, the agency must adhere to those criteria in evaluating proposals and making its award decision or inform all offerors of any significant changes made in the evaluation scheme. Id. Further, where an agency fails to document its evaluation or retain evaluation materials, it bears the risk that there may not be adequate supporting rationale in the record for GAO to conclude that the agency had a reasonable basis for the source selection decision. Tantus Techs., supra at 6; Vertex Aerospace, supra at 9.

Here, the RFP required the agency to consider the size of offerors’ prior experience examples as compared to that of the solicited requirement in determining the relevancy of those efforts. As discussed above, the RFP’s instructions directed offerors to provide a detailed description of their relevant prior efforts, including, in part, a description of both the size and the scope of those efforts. The RFP further instructed offerors to demonstrate how those efforts were similar to the requirement here. Also discussed above, the RFP stated that the agency would evaluate proposals under the prior experience factor based on the agency’s confidence that the offeror had provided a detailed description of prior efforts that were, among other things, similar in size and scope to the property management support services being procured here. Thus, the RFP contemplated that the agency’s evaluation under this factor would consider, in part, the size of offerors’ prior experience examples relative to the solicited requirement.

In assigning a rating of high confidence to Strativia’s proposal under the prior experience factor, the agency’s technical evaluation team (TET) concluded that Strativia’s proposal had “demonstrated prior contract support that is . . . relevant in terms of size and scope[.]” AR, Tab 7, TET Report at AR 0452. Similarly, in making an award recommendation, the contracting officer also concluded that Strativia’s proposal had demonstrated experience that was relevant in terms of size and scope based on the TET’s evaluation. AR, Tab 9, Trade-Off Analysis and Award Recommendation at AR 0473. Additionally, the SSA reviewed the TET’s assessment and agreed that Strativia’s proposal had demonstrated prior contract support that was relevant in terms of both size and scope. AR, Tab 10, SSA Decision Memorandum at AR 0478. Thus, in assigning a rating of high confidence to Strativia’s proposal under the prior experience factor, the agency determined that Strativia’s prior experience examples were relevant to this requirement in terms of both size and scope. The record of the evaluation of Strativia’s proposal, however, does not permit us to conclude that the agency reasonably considered the similarity of the size of Strativia’s prior experience examples to the instant requirement.

With respect to the first project included in Strativia’s proposal, the TET report contains little, if any, discussion of any indicia of the size of that effort as compared to this requirement. It does not discuss, for example, the dollar value of that effort in comparison to the TSA property management program support services being procured here. There is discussion of various other aspects that may bear on the size of the effort, such as the numbers of material coordinators, accountable property record items and equipment accounts, vehicles, and facilities, but the evaluation does not compare those aspects to what will be required for the TSA property management program. See AR, Tab 7, Strativia TET Report at AR 0448. In this regard, the TET report largely just restates the contents of Strativia’s proposal without further analysis or elaboration.

The TET report does state that Strativia’s second prior experience project was similar in size to the solicited requirement based on the number of full‑time equivalents (FTEs) involved, but there is no explanation of why that number of FTEs is similar to the solicited effort. See id. at AR 0449. Similarly, the TET report states that the reference’s approximately $12 million value over a 62‑month period of performance is comparable to the value to the solicited effort, but there is no discussion of why the TET arrived at that conclusion.[5] See id.

Finally, the TET report recites that Strativia’s third prior experience example had a value of $1.7 million over a 14‑month period of performance. See id. at AR 0448. There is no discussion, however, of whether and to what extent the TET concluded that the size of that effort--whether based on value or other indicia--was similar to the requirement being procured here in determining that the effort was relevant.

Furthermore, the agency’s response to the protester’s allegations do not explain how, if at all, the agency reasonably considered the size of Strativia’s prior experience efforts in determining that they were relevant to the requirement that is the subject of this procurement. Instead, the agency focuses almost entirely on the agency’s consideration of scope, rather than size.[6] See generally Supp. Memorandum of Law at 3‑5. As discussed above, however, the RFP contemplated consideration of both size and scope in assessing the relevancy of prior experience examples.

Simply put, the record does not demonstrate that the agency considered the size of Strativia’s prior experience efforts in comparison to that of the solicited effort in a manner consistent with the evaluation criteria of the RFP. While we recognize that this procurement was conducted pursuant to the streamlined procedures of FAR subpart 16.5, we nonetheless apply the requirements as set forth in the solicitation. See, e.g., Tantus Techs., supra at 8‑9 (sustaining protest in task order competition where the agency did not adhere to the announced evaluation scheme in evaluating corporate experience and past performance); Mission Essential Pers., LLC, B‑407474; B‑407493, Jan. 7, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 22 at 6‑7 (sustaining protest in task order competition where the agency’s past performance evaluation was inconsistent with the solicitation). Because the record fails to demonstrate that the agency evaluated the size of Strativia’s prior experience examples relative to the solicited requirement in making its relevancy determination, as required by the RFP, we conclude that the agency’s evaluation of this factor was unreasonable and improper.

Our Office will not sustain a protest unless the protester demonstrates a reasonable probability that it was prejudiced by the agency’s actions; that is, unless the protester demonstrates that, but for the agency’s actions, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award. Raytheon Co., B‑409651, B‑409651.2, July 9, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 207 at 17. Here, we cannot say with certainty what the agency’s conclusion would have been had it meaningfully evaluated the size of Strativia’s prior experience examples. In that regard, we note that the RFP stated that prior experience was the most important evaluation factor and price was the least important evaluation factor. Thus, any potential downgrade in the evaluation of Strativia’s proposal under the prior experience factor may alter the agency’s source selection decision, particularly where Strativia’s proposal also was lower‑rated under other factors and the agency determined that the technical superiority of the protester’s proposal did not warrant the associated price premium. See AR, Tab 10, SSA Decision Memorandum at AR 0479. In such circumstances, we resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of a protester since a reasonable possibility of prejudice is a sufficient basis for sustaining a protest. See AT&T Corp., B‑414886 et al., Oct. 5, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 330 at 8.

Accordingly, we conclude that the protester has established the requisite competitive prejudice to prevail in a bid protest.

RECOMMENDATION

We recommend that the agency reevaluate proposals in a manner consistent with the discussion above and make a new source selection decision based on that reevaluation. Should the agency conclude that an offeror other than Strativia is in line for award, we recommend that the agency terminate the task order issued to Strativia for the convenience of the government, and issue the task order to that offeror, if otherwise proper. We also recommend that the agency reimburse the protester the costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(d)(1). The protester should submit its certified claims for costs, detailing the time expended and cost incurred, directly to the contracting agency within 60 days after receipt of this decision. 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(f)(1).

The protest is sustained.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel