Foundation Engineering Sciences, Inc., B-292834; B-292834.2, December 12, 2003

Foundation Engineering Sciences, Inc., B-292834; B-292834.2, December 12, 2003 TITLE: Foundation Engineering Sciences, Inc., B-292834; B-292834.2, December 12, 2003 BNUMBER: B-292834; B-292834.2 DATE: December 12, 2003 ********************************************************************** Foundation Engineering Sciences, Inc., B-292834; B-292834.2, December 12, 2003 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. Decision Matter of: Foundation Engineering Sciences, Inc. File: B-292834; B-292834.2 Date: December 12, 2003 Robert E. Korroch, Esq., Williams Mullen, for the protester. Paul R. Smith, Esq., and Robert E. Little, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency should have selected the protester, the fourth-ranked firm, as the most highly qualified firm with which to negotiate an architect-engineer contract is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably evaluated the protester's and the awardee's qualifications consistent with the evaluation factors and applicable procurement rules, and reasonably determined that, due to its relatively limited equipment availability, protester was not the most highly qualified of the firms. DECISION Foundation Engineering Sciences, Inc. protests the selection by the Department of the Navy of GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. as the firm with which to negotiate an architect-engineer (A-E) contract for geotechnical engineering services at various activities within the geographical area of the Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Foundation argues that it was improper for the agency to credit GeoEnvironmental with the experience and qualifications of that firm's subcontractors and consultants, broadly alleges that it should have been found technically superior to the awardee, and asserts that the agency unreasonably ranked the protester lower than the awardee due to its concerns about the number of drilling rigs the protester proposed. We deny the protest. This procurement of A-E services is being conducted pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Brooks Act, as amended, 40 U.S.C. S:S: 541 et seq. (2000), and its implementing regulations, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.6. In accordance with those regulations, on March 24, 2003, the Navy synopsized the requirement; the procurement, set aside for small business concerns, was referenced as solicitation No. N62470-03-R-1133. Firms were invited to submit qualifications statements to be considered for negotiations with the agency for an indefinite-quantity contract for A-E services, including subsurface investigation, field and laboratory material testing and evaluation, geotechnical/foundation analysis, and construction and building material testing.[1] Interested A-E firms were to submit a completed standard form (SF) 254 (A-E and Related Services Questionnaire) and SF 255 (A-E and Related Services for Specific Project Questionnaire) detailing their qualifications. Firms were advised that their qualifications would be evaluated under seven evaluation factors; the first five were equally weighted, and the last two were of lesser importance. The seven evaluation factors were as follows: (1) specialized experience; (2) professional qualifications and technical competence in the type of work required; (3) ability to perform the work (in terms of the firm's permanent staff, projected workload, and performance schedule compliance); (4) past performance; (5) quality control program; (6) firm location and knowledge of the locality of the contract; and (7) volume of work. Firms were instructed to demonstrate their own and their key consultants' qualifications for evaluation. For example, in terms of demonstrating the ability to perform, firms were instructed to discuss both their own and their consultants' experience, and the working history and relationship between the team members; for this evaluation factor, firms were specifically instructed to demonstrate the ability to complete an emergency work order of $20,000 or less within 10 days, as well as the ability to complete multiple concurrent projects, such as four work orders issued within a 10‑day period. Fifteen firms submitted their qualifications for evaluation. The agency's evaluation panel reviewed each firm's submissions, chose the five highest-rated firms, and conducted interviews with those firms.