Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation and the accuracy of the government estimate is denied. The protester alleged the agency applied unstated criteria in assigning its proposal a weakness for relying on old vehicles. Given that the protester expressly stated that it would use vehicles that had 200,000 miles and were prone to engine failure, GAO found that the agency reasonably assessed a weakness. The protester also objected to a weakness it received for proposing too much toilet paper, claiming that the weakness was based on a flawed government estimate. But the GAO found that the toilet paper estimate was reasonably based on historic usage, and the protester had failed to explain why the historic data was unreliable.
The Army Corps of Engineers issued a solicitation seeking maintenance, repair, and minor construction services at the Hartwell Dam and Lake in Georgia and South Carolina. Re-Engineered Business Solutions, Inc. (RBS) and R&D Maintenance Services submitted proposals. The Corps awarded the contract to R&D. RBS protested challenging the technical evaluation and the accuracy of the government estimate.
RBS argued that the Corps applied unstated criteria when it assigned the company a weakness for the age of its vehicles. RBS contended that there was no age requirement for vehicles in the solicitation, and that it did not supply any information to the agency about the age of its vehicles.
GAO rejected the argument. While the solicitation did not contain a vehicle age requirement, the Corps reached its conclusion about the age of RBS’s vehicles from information in its proposal. RBS expressly stated that it was using vehicles with over 200,000 miles and warned that the vehicles may experience engine or transmission failure. The Corps’ concerns about the RBS’s vehicles were reasonable.
RBS also argued that the Corps disparately evaluated offerors because R&D had also proposed old vehicles. But GAO found that allegation was incorrect. R&D’s proposal had identified the year of manufacture for all its vehicles. Unlike RBS, all of R&D’s vehicles were 2015 or newer.
RBS further contended that it had been improperly assigned weaknesses based on a flawed government estimate. GAO found these arguments meritless. For instance, RBS was assigned a weakness from proposing too much toilet paper. The IGE calculated that 305 cases of toilet paper would be necessary. RBS proposed 715 cases. RBS argued that the 305 estimate was flawed because it was based on the previous cost-reimbursement contract while the new requirement was fixed-price.
GAO found that the estimate was based on the historical use of toilet paper. RBS had not explained—and it was not apparent to GAO—why an estimate based on the historic use of toilet paper was unreliable.
RBS is represented by Wayne A. Keup of Wayne A. Keup, PLLC. The intervenor, R&D, is represented by Scott M. Heimberg and Elise A. Ferrerll of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. The agency is represented by Connie L. Baran. GAO attorneys Christine Milne and Tania Calhoun participated in the preparation of the decision.
