McHargue Construction Company, B-279715, July 16, 1998

B-279715 Jul 16, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Lower-priced offerors than the protester is unobjectionable since the record shows that the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation and the record supports the evaluators' conclusions. The solicitation contemplates that GSA will issue task orders under each ID/IQ contract to obtain all labor. Which was not set aside for small business concerns. Offerors were advised that the RFP reflected the agency's minimum requirements and were invited to increase the quantity and quality of services to be provided in their proposals. The maximum value for each ID/IQ contract is $10 million. Offerors were required to identify at least two similar projects valued at least $200. View Decision Matter of: McHargue Construction Company File: B-279715 Date: July 16, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION McHargue Construction Company protests the failure of the General Services Administration to make an award to it under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-04P-97-EWD-0056, for general repairs and alterations to government-owned and government-leased space in various buildings within the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. We deny the protest. The RFP, as amended, provided for award of multiple fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts for a 1-year base period with four 1-year option periods. RFP, amend. No. 02; Vol. 1 Sec. 300 at 1-2, Para. 1.1-1.2, 1.4, 1.5. The solicitation contemplates that GSA will issue task orders under each ID/IQ contract to obtain all labor, materials, supervision, tools, and equipment necessary for the construction and repair projects. The RFP also stated the competition procedure for placement of individual task orders among the firms that receive contract awards. RFP, Vol. I Sec. 300 at 10-11, Para. 7. The solicitation, which was not set aside for small business concerns, permitted offerors to submit proposals for all or for specific geographic areas within a particular state. /1/ The RFP stated that the agency could award up to five ID/IQ contracts for each geographic area listed in the RFP. RFP, amend. No. 02. Offerors were advised that the RFP reflected the agency's minimum requirements and were invited to increase the quantity and quality of services to be provided in their proposals. RFP, amend. No. 02, Vol. II, Evaluation and Award, Para. 1. The maximum value for each ID/IQ contract is $10 million. RFP, Vol. 1 Sec. 300 at 2, Para. 1.7. The RFP stated a greatest value evaluation scheme, with technical quality deemed more important than price. RFP, Vol. I Sec. 300 at 6, Para. 4.1. Proposals would be evaluated on the basis of the following technical evaluation factors, with their relative weights to be scored on a 1,000-point scale: /2/ (a) experience and past performance--500 points; (b) qualifications of key personnel--250 points; and (c) management and technical approach--250 points. The RFP provided detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals and requested that offerors organize their technical proposals to respond to the evaluation factors and provide separate technical and price proposals. RFP, Vol. I Sec. 300 at 7-9, Para. 5.2. Under experience and past performance, offerors were required to identify at least two similar projects valued at least $200,000 each. /3/ As to the qualifications of key personnel, the RFP required resumes for each key individual including a description of the duties and responsibilities performed by these individuals on their last three similar projects. As part of their management and technical approach proposal, offerors were required to describe their approach to accomplishing the demonstration project included in the RFP. RFP, amend. No. 03 at 3. This demonstration project was representative of the general requirements for work to be ordered under the ID/IQ contracts and offerors were to address and provide examples of their ability to perform work of the size and type involved; their ability to effectively coordinate the work of multiple trades; and their ability to handle multiple projects, priority work, and demanding customers. RFP, amend. No. 02, Vol. III, Demonstration Project. With respect to price, the RFP instructed offerors that they were to prepare their price proposals by submitting pricing for normal and expedited completion of the demonstration project, /4/ including detailed price break-out by major technical specification categories. RFP, Vol. I Sec. 300 at 9, Para. 5.2(d). Price proposals would be evaluated based on the realism and reasonableness of the proposed price for the demonstration project, considering both the offeror's approach and understanding of the project. RFP, Vol. 1 Sec. 300 at 7, Para. 4.1(b). Several proposals were received by the October 17, 1997 extended closing date, including McHargue's.