URS Consultants

URS Consultants BNUMBER: B-275068; B-275068.2 DATE: January 21, 1997 TITLE: URS Consultants ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:URS Consultants File: B-275068; B-275068.2 Date:January 21, 1997 James S. Hostetler, Esq., and Susan K. Fitch, Esq., Kirkland & Ellis, for the protester. Frank S. Swain, Esq., Baker & Daniels, for Schmidt Associates, Inc., an intervenor. Marcy A. Sherrill, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that the agency's evaluation of the protester's past performance in a procurement for architect-engineering services relating to renovation of a building was unreasonable because the agency did not recognize the relevance and outstanding nature of the protester's previous design work on the same building under a contract with a different agency is denied where the agency reasonably considered the protester's previous design work on the same building, as well as the recommendations and criticisms from references listed by the protester regarding the quality of the protester's performance on other prior architect-engineering work, as part of its past performance evaluation. DECISION URS Consultants protests the General Services Administration's (GSA) evaluation of offerors' qualifications and selection of Schmidt Associates for negotiation of an architect/engineering (A/E) services contract pursuant to request for qualifications (RFQ) No. GS05P96GBC0013 for performing various A/E services related to modernization and renovation of a building at Fort Benjamin Harrison in Indianapolis, Indiana. Fort Benjamin Harrision was closed in 1996 pursuant to the Base Closure and Realignment Act, 10 U.S.C. sec. 2687 (1994), and GSA assumed ownership and control of Building One. We deny the protest. This A/E procurement was conducted pursuant to the Brooks Architect-Engineers Act, 40 U.S.C. sec. 541-544 (1994) and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.6, which provides that agencies shall announce their A/E requirements and list general and project-specific evaluation criteria, appoint expert evaluation boards to review qualification statements submitted in response to the synopsis by prospective offerors together with in-house data concerning the offerors' capabilities and past performance, and evaluate and rank at least three offerors on a short list for further contract negotiations in order of ranking. On May 16, 1995, GSA synopsized the requirements of the solicitation in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) and requested qualifications statements from firms interested in performing various A/E services related to the general rehabilitation and renovation of Building One, at Fort Benjamin Harrison. The synopsis indicated that modernization efforts were to include pre-design programming, surveying of existing conditions, studies, developing concepts, presentations for client agencies, energy conservation analysis, development of housing plans and support for the relocation of tenants into swing space, development of phasing plans, completion of architectural and engineering design, preparation of specifications and computer-assisted design and drafting drawings for construction documents, value engineering, cost estimating, space planning, interior design, and post-construction services (including shop drawing review, photography, record drawings and construction inspection). The synopsis stated that each firm's qualifications would be evaluated on four evaluation criteria, listed in descending order of importance as follows: past performance on design; philosophy and design intent; key designers' portfolio; and designers' profile. The CBD synopsis indicated that GSA would select a contractor through a two-stage process. Stage I would establish the architectural, mechanical and electrical engineering, and industrial hygienist design capabilities of interested A/E firms and their key designers. During Stage I, interested firms were to submit standard forms (SF) 254 and 255[1] for the A/E design firm only and additional information including: 8"X10" graphics and written descriptions of relevant prior completed projects; a statement from their key designers regarding the firm's design philosophy and the parameters that apply specifically to the modernization of buildings; their key designers' portfolios; and biographical profiles of their key designers.