The protester argued the solicitation terms were unduly restrictive by requiring two past performances of relevant size of at least $1M. GAO found lack of competitive prejudice because the protester submitted a proposal that referenced two past performance valued at over $1M/year. Furthermore, the solicitation didn’t require the past performance.
K&K JL Services, Inc., GAO B-423367
- Protest – The protester challenged the terms and conditions of an RFP for grounds maintenance at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia. It claimed the solicitation was unduly restrictive because it required two past performance references and defined “relevant size” as a project with a value of at least $1M. According to the protester, these effectively exclude a number of small businesses capable of the work.
- Decision – GAO noted that the protester had submitted a proposal that identified two past performances for grounds maintenance work with dollar values of more than $1M per year. GAO, therefore, found the protester could not demonstrate competitive prejudice. Regardless, GAO also pointed out that the solicitation deem offerors without two relevant past performances ineligible. On the contrary, the solicitation ensured that offerors with no relevant past performance would not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.
The protester was represented by Samuel S. Finnerty, Ryan J. Boonstra, Christopher A. Jannace, and Kristine “Krissy” Callé of Piliero Mazza PLLC. The agency was represented by Nina R. Padalino, Christian H. Robertson II, William M. Fuller, and Sean McCabe of the Air Force. Samantha S. Lee and Peter H. Tran of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor.
