Goode Construction, Inc., B-288655; B-288655.2; B-288655.3, October 19, 2001

Goode Construction, Inc., B-288655; B-288655.2; B-288655.3, October 19, 2001 TITLE: Goode Construction, Inc., B-288655; B-288655.2; B-288655.3, October 19, 2001 BNUMBER: B-288655; B-288655.2; B-288655.3 DATE: October 19, 2001 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Goode Construction, Inc. File: B-288655; B-288655.2; B-288655.3 Date: October 19, 2001 Robert E. Korroch, Esq., Williams Mullen Clark & Dobbins, for the protester. Keith A. Moore-Erikson, Esq., United States Coast Guard, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency improperly converted technical evaluation process into responsibility determination is denied where record shows that award was based on a comparative evaluation of the relevant past performance of awardee and protester. 2. Protest that agency improperly failed to adjust protester's proposal evaluation score upward following discussions is denied where record shows that protester did not adequately respond to agency's request for additional information during discussions, and that increased score therefore was not warranted. DECISION Goode Construction, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Wren, Incorporated, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTCG47-01-R-3EFK15, issued by the United States Coast Guard for replacement of the central steam plant with natural gas facilities at the Coast Guard Training Center in Cape May, New Jersey. Goode complains that the Coast Guard rejected the firm, a small business, as nonresponsible, and improperly failed to refer that determination to the Small Business Administration (SBA). Goode also challenges the past performance evaluation. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a HUB-Zone set-aside, required the successful contractor to decentralize the steam plant. The work involves 24 buildings and will take place while training for new recruits and operations at the center are ongoing. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1. The solicitation provided for a "best value" evaluation based on past performance and price, which were weighted equally. With respect to past performance, the solicitation advised offerors to include information on relevant contracts performed within the past 3 years, and listed the following critical performance elements as those which the agency would evaluate: Projects that required management of construction at multiple sites with controlled phasing and multiple disciplines. Projects that required coordination of construction to accommodate continued operations by occupants. Projects that involved building hot water heating systems, in particular, conversion from steam to hot water. Projects that involved installation of gas-fired galley and laundry equipment. RFP sect. M.4. Goode, a small business and HUB-Zone contractor, submitted its proposal with a large business teaming partner, M&W Construction Corp. Wren, also a small business and HUB-Zone contractor, submitted its proposal pursuant to a mentor-prot�g� agreement with a large business, CBC Enterprises, Inc. The Source Evaluation Board (SEB) evaluated Goode's and Wren's past performance, and concluded that neither contractor had performed many contracts similar to the current solicitation. Consequently, the SEB decided to review and rely on the past performance of CBC and M&W. COS at 4; Source Evaluation Board Report (SEBR) at 4. The SEB found that CBC had an extensive past performance record on each of the critical performance elements, and had performed many projects that combined two or more of the critical elements. SEBR at 10; COS at 4. In addition, the references contacted for CBC rated the firm's performance satisfactory to above average. Id. [1] In contrast, the SEB found that M&W had only marginally relevant past performance for the first two critical elements, a moderately relevant reference for the third, and no references for the fourth. SEBR at 9-10; COS at 4. In addition, the SEB received a negative reference for one of the projects M&W submitted to demonstrate past performance under the first two elements. SEBR at 9-10; COS at 4. The agency held discussions with both offerors and requested their final proposal revisions (FPR). The SEB evaluated the FPRs, but did not change the past performance ratings. SEBR at 9; COS at 5. With respect to price, Goode offered to perform for [DELETED] and Wren for [DELETED]. SEBR at 9, 8. The SEB determined that Wren's proposal offered the best value to the government, and thus made award to that firm. RESPONSIBILITY Goode asserts that, because the Coast Guard inquired into Goode's capacity and experience, it essentially converted the technical evaluation into a responsibility determination, and therefore actually rejected Goode as a nonresponsible contractor.