About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-415215.4 1 (2018-04-27)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadupe0001 and id is 1 raw text is: GAOU.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 441 G St. N.W. Comptroller General Washington, DC 20548 of the United States ....................................................................................................................... DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to Decision a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of: Auxilio FPM JV, LLC--Costs File: B-415215.4 Date: April 27, 2018 Phillip R. Seckman, Esq., Thomas F. Rath, Esq., and J. Quincy Stott, Esq., Dentons US LLP, for the protester. Connie L. Baran, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Nora K. Adkins, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST GAO recommends reimbursement of the costs of filing and pursuing challenges against the agency's evaluation of technical proposals, past performance, and the source selection decision, where the evaluation challenges were clearly meritorious, or intertwined with clearly meritorious issues. DECISION Auxilio FPM JV, LLC, an 8(a) small business located in Denver, Colorado, requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs associated with filing and pursuing its protest against the award of four indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HN-15-R-0035, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps) for environmental investigation and remediation services at military munitions response program sites. We grant the request. BACKGROUND On October 10, 2017, Auxilio filed a protest with our Office challenging the agency's evaluation of technical proposals, past performance, and the agency's source selection. Specifically, Auxilio argued that the agency failed to credit its proposal with two strengths and improperly combined two other strengths into a single strength. Auxilio also alleged that the agency's past performance evaluation failed to consider past performance questionnaires (PPQs) and contractor performance assessment report (CPAR) information, applied an unstated evaluation criterion by assessing separate