C. Lawrence Construction Company, Inc., B-289341, January 8, 2002

B-289341 Jan 08, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that solicitation's past performance evaluation criteria are unnecessarily restrictive is denied where the record shows that the provisions are reasonably related to the agency's minimum needs. The protester contends that the solicitation's past performance evaluation criteria are unnecessarily restrictive. The successful offeror will be awarded a fixed-price contract to construct a 55. The facility will be constructed of a pre-engineered steel frame with standing seam metal roof. The contractor is also required to demolish a concrete aircraft ramp and perform general paving and grading and other general site utilities. The estimated cost of the project is between $5 and $10 million. View Decision C. Lawrence Construction Company, Inc., B-289341, January 8, 2002 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION C. Lawrence Construction Company, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA01-02-R-0007, issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, for the construction of an F-22 squadron maintenance hangar at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. The protester contends that the solicitation's past performance evaluation criteria are unnecessarily restrictive. We deny the protest. The successful offeror will be awarded a fixed-price contract to construct a 55,000 square-foot maintenance hangar with an attached squadron operations center and maintenance unit. The facility will be constructed of a pre-engineered steel frame with standing seam metal roof, fabric hangar doors, a combination metal panel and architectural concrete masonry unit exterior. The contractor is also required to demolish a concrete aircraft ramp and perform general paving and grading and other general site utilities. The estimated cost of the project is between $5 and $10 million. RFP Sec. 952.000-4214. The agency will conduct a competitive "best value" source selection in which competing offerors' past and present performance history will be evaluated on a basis equal to price or other considerations. RFP Sec. 00110. In the past performance information volume of its proposal, /1/ each offeror is required to [p]rovide a list of at least five (5), but no more than ten (10), of the most relevant contracts performed for Government or commercial customers within the last 5 years. 'Relevant' contracts are construction projects that are similar in scope and magnitude to this project, including but not limited to, aircraft hangars and/or light industrial type facilities which may include pre-engineered metal building frame, paving and utility work; and within the range of $5,000,000 to $10,000,000. RFP Sec. 00110 Para. 2.1.1(a). For each listed contract, offerors must furnish information such as the name and owner of the project, its general scope, the firm's role and work on the project, the extent and type of work subcontracted, and the construction cost, as well as a performance survey form completed by the project owner. RFP Sec. 00110 Paras. 2.1.1(a), (b). Offerors can also provide any information for any other project that demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed contracts of similar scope and magnitude. RFP Sec. 00110 Para. 2.1.1(b). The RFP states that a technical evaluation team (TET) will evaluate past performance information on the lowest-priced offerors and perform a performance risk assessment. The TET will use each offeror's past performance information to evaluate the quality of its performance on recent, relevant projects of similar scope and magnitude to make an overall assessment of its ability to perform the work required by the solicitation. RFP Sec. 00120 Para. 2.2.2.1. Pricing information will be provided to the TET after the conclusion of its evaluation, and the TET will recommend award to the offeror whose proposal is fair and reasonable and most advantageous to the government considering past performance and price. C. Lawrence Construction contends that the solicitation's past performance evaluation criteria are unnecessarily restrictive in two respects. The protester first objects that the requirement to provide a list of at least five contracts within the range of $5 to $10 million is unnecessarily restrictive because it will "automatically exclude small, emerging businesses from being awarded the contract." Protest at 1. The protester next objects to the solicitation's provision regarding evaluation of past performance on the ground that, in its experience, the agency's past performance evaluations focus primarily on the name of the project and do not consider any other factors. Protest at 2. The Competition in Contracting Act generally requires that solicitations permit full and open competition and contain restrictive provisions or conditions only to the extent necessary to satisfy the agency's needs. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2305(a)(1) (1994).