United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Ahtna Facility Services, Inc.-Reconsideration

File: B-404913.3

Date: October 6, 2011

Robert K. Tompkins, Esq., Patton Boggs LLP, for the protester.

Department of the Army, for the agency.

Gary R. Allen, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Request for reconsideration of decision denying protest is denied where, contrary to 

protester’s claims, the decision considered all of protester’s arguments in resolving 

the protest, but only discussed the primary arguments, and where the decision did 

not contain errors of fact or law that warranted its reversal or modification.

DECISION

Ahtna Facility Services, Inc. requests reconsideration of our decision in Ahtna 

Facility Servs., Inc. , B-404913, B-404913.2, June 30, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 134, in which 

we denied Ahtna’s protest of its exclusion from the competitive range by the 

Department of the Army under request for proposals (RFP) No. W81K04-11-R-0005 

for healthcare environmental services for the San Antonio Military Medical CenterNorth (SAMMC-N) and other medical facilities at or around Fort Sam Houston, 

Texas. Ahtna complains that we did not address the “unequal treatment of offerors” 

and “improper ranking of proposals” arguments raised in its supplemental protest, 

and various other arguments it made challenging the reasonableness of the agency’s 

evaluation. Ahtna also argues that our decision made errors of law and fact 

concerning its ground of protest about addressing seven types of services, and 

misread the RFP requirements concerning performance metrics.

We deny the reconsideration request. 

On December 8, 2010, the agency published the RFP, seeking proposals to provide 

healthcare environmental services for SAMMC-N and other nearby medical facilities. 

The RFP provided that the agency would use “the Lowest Price, Technically 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

The decision issued on the date below was subject to a 

GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been 

approved for public release.
Page 2 B-404913.3 

Acceptable (LPTA) source selection technique,” with two evaluation factors: 

technical acceptability and price. RFP amend. 3 at 263, 270-71, 279-86. Under the 

technical acceptability factor, the RFP established two subfactors, management 

approach and technical approach, along with various subfactor “components.” The 

RFP advised offerors that a technically acceptable proposal was one that “contains 

no deficiencies or significant weaknesses,”further stating that “any aspect of the 

proposal judged to be unacceptable may render the entire proposal unacceptable.” 

Id. at 264-65, 280. 

With regard to technical acceptability, the RFP advised offerors that their proposals 

must comply with all of the requirements contained in the RFP’s performance work 

statement (PWS). Specifically, the RFP stated, “[a]ll requirements specified in the 

PWS are mandatory,” and elaborated that “[t]he proposal shall not merely offer to 

perform work in accordance with the PWS, but shall outline the actual methods 

proposed as specifically as possible.” Id. at 270. 

On January 18, 2011, Ahtna and several other offerors submitted proposals. The 

agency subsequently evaluated Ahtna’s initial proposal as technically unacceptable, 

with multiple deficiencies and significant weaknesses. The agency retained Ahtna’s 

proposal in the competitive range and, by letter dated March 2, opened discussions 

with Ahtna, specifically outlining the various evaluated proposal deficiencies and 

significant weaknesses. On March 4, the agency conducted oral discussions with 

Ahtna, again identifying the various flaws in Ahtna’s proposal and responding to 

various Ahtna questions. On March 9, Ahtna submitted its revised proposal. Based 

on its evaluation, the agency concluded that Ahtna’s proposal was still technically 

unacceptable, and excluded it from the competitive range. 

Ahtna protested to our Office, challenging the evaluation of its technical and 

management approaches, and asserting that the agency failed to conduct meaningful 

discussions and exhibited bias. In a supplemental protest, Ahtna also complained 

that the agency treated offerors unequally and improperly ranked proposals.

In our decision of June 30, 2011, we denied Ahtna’s protest, finding that the agency’s 

assessment that Ahtna’s revised proposal remained technically unacceptable was 

reasonable, that the agency had conducted meaningful discussions, and that the 

record did not support the allegation of bias. We also noted that Ahtna had raised 

various other arguments, which we had reviewed and found no basis for sustaining 

the firm’s protest. See Ahtna Facility Servs., Inc., supra, at 11 n.15.

Ahtna requests reconsideration of our decision. Ahtna argues that our decision 

failed to consider all of Ahtna’s arguments and that it contained various errors of fact 

and law. To prevail on a request for reconsideration, the requesting party must 

either show that our decision contains errors of fact or law, or present information 

not previously considered that warrants the decision’s reversal or modification. 

4 C.F.R. ¶ 21.14(a) (2011); Waterfront Techs., Inc.--Recon., B-403638.4, June 29, 2011, 
Page 3 B-404913.3 

2011 CPD ¶ 126 at 3. Here, Ahtna does not show that our decision contains material 

errors of law or fact that warrant modification or reversal of our prior decision.

In its reconsideration request, Ahtna states that we failed to consider its arguments 

that it raised in its initial and supplemental protests concerning the unequal 

treatment of offerors, the improper ranking of proposals, and numerous other 

assertions. Contrary to Ahtna’s arguments and stated in our prior decision, we 

considered all of Ahtna’s arguments in resolving the protest, but only discussed its 

primary arguments in resolving the protest. This is consistent with the statutory 

mandate that our bid protest forum provide for “the inexpensive and expeditious 

resolution of protests.” See Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. 

§ 3554(a)(1) (2006). We have again reviewed the arguments referenced by the 

protester in its reconsideration request that were not addressed in detail in our prior 

decision and find that none had any merit; we also find these arguments do not 

provide a basis to warrant reversal or modification of our prior decision.

Ahtna also asserts that our decision committed a clear error of fact and law in 

considering Ahtna’s arguments on the evaluation of its technical proposal and its 

policies and procedures manual both with respect to the “seven types of services” 

and “metrics and standards.” Reconsideration Request at 6. 

Ahtna specifically claims that it had not been “informed prior to its protest 

(March 22) that it did not address the seven types of services in its debriefing or 

otherwise,” and therefore, our decision made a “clear error of fact and law . . . [by 

reading] into the debriefing document that Ahtna was on notice that the agency 

believed it did not address the seven types of services.” Id. at 4-5. Ahtna’s version is 

readily belied by the documents the agency sent to it on March 2 and March 17. The 

agency’s March 2 letter expressly advised Ahtna that its procedures manual was 

deficient in that it “did not include the seven (7) types of services [identified in the 

PWS],” “failed to include performance standards,” and “failed to include meaningful 

and measurable performance metrics.” AR, Tab 11, Items for Discussion, at 5-6. 

Again, in the March 17 letter, the agency plainly stated that its “revised EVS Policies 

and Procedures Manual failed once more to include cleaning procedures that 

address the seven (7) types of services.” AR, Tab 20, Debriefing Letter, at 10. 

Ahtna also claims that our decision was based on a clear error of fact because it 

found that Ahtna did not establish standards or metrics for determining the level of 

performance that would constitute deficient performance. Reconsideration Request, 

at 5. Ahtna bases its assertion on the fact that its comments on the agency report, 

and the underlying proposal, stated that it had a “zero tolerance” policy for errors. 

Id. We fail to see Ahtna’s point. The RFP plainly requires offerors to include in their 

offers a procedures manual that “demonstrate[d] meaningful and measurable

performance metrics . . . . and [otherwise] establish performance standards.” RFP, 

amend. 3 at 270-71 and 215 (emphasis added). The fact that Ahtna has a “zero 

tolerance” policy for errors might indicate how it treats a performance deficiency 

that has occurred, but says nothing about any “measurable” standards, or any other 
Page 4 B-404913.3 

method for determining what constitutes such a deficiency. We find no error of fact 

or law in the decision as to this issue to warrant reversal or modification of our prior 

decision. 

The remainder of Ahtna’s request for reconsideration repeats arguments it made 

during the original protest or merely disagrees with our decision, which provides no 

basis to grant its reconsideration request. Waterfront Techs., Inc.-Recon., supra.

The request for reconsideration is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel