Firma Hermann Leis, B-295956; B-295956.2, May 19, 2005

Firma Hermann Leis, B-295956; B-295956.2, May 19, 2005 TITLE: Firma Hermann Leis, B-295956; B-295956.2, May 19, 2005 BNUMBER: B-295956; B-295956.2 DATE: May 19, 2005 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Firma Hermann Leis File: B-295956; B-295956.2 Date: May 19, 2005 Paul D. Reinsdorf, Esq., Reinsdorf & Associates, for the protester. Maj. Gregory R. Bockin, Department of the Army, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that awardee does not meet solicitation's definitive responsibility criterion requiring proof of 5 years of experience for the type of work to be performed is denied where record shows that the contracting officer reasonably determined that the awardee satisfied this criterion. 2. Protest that agency's evaluation and source selection decision were flawed is denied where record shows that the agency's evaluation and source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation factors. DECISION Firma Hermann Leis protests the award of a contract to Dachbau Kurpfalz GmbH under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912PE-04-R-0059, issued by the Department of the Army, for roofing work in support of the 411th Base Support Battalion facilities in Germany. Leis objects to the agency's evaluation of proposals and the source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity roofing contract for a 1-year base period with four 1-year option periods. As a threshold requirement, the RFP provided that "[o]fferors who [did] not have five years of [roofing] experience [were] not eligible for award." RFP S M, P A. For those offerors that met the 5-year experience requirement, the RFP stated that award would be made on a "best value" basis, with the past performance and experience factors being of equal importance and, when combined, the factors would be approximately equal to price. RFP S M, PP A, B. In this regard, the RFP stated that in evaluating experience, the agency would emphasize the following: a. Depth of experience doing work of a similar size and nature, task orders covering multiple service/work orders in accordance with the SOW in the amount of Euro 400,000.00.[1] b. Experience working with U.S. Government agencies. c. Experience in performing multiple projects in different locations at the same time. RFP S M P C. Offerors were required to complete and submit either an offeror questionnaire in the format provided in attachment A to the RFP or a separate document containing all the information outlined in attachment A, which included information supporting the firm's experience and qualifications to perform the requirement. On attachment A, offerors were to specifically provide a description of work which best illustrated past performance and experience relevant to the current contract, including "all task orders issued [for] multiple service work orders" and a description of the work experience that demonstrated the offeror's ability to perform multiple projects in different locations at the same time. RFP SS M P C.2.a, L, Additional Information. As relevant here, both Leis and Dachbau were determined to have met the 5-year minimum experience requirement. The agency then contacted three references for each offeror. AR, Tab 15, Source Selection Decision. The evaluation of the proposals submitted by the Dachbau and Leis was as follows: +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Offeror |Past Performance |Experience |Price | |-------------+----------------------+----------------+------------------| |Dachbau |Low Risk |Very Good |$2,655,756.25 | |-------------+----------------------+----------------+------------------| |Leis |Low Risk |Marginal |$[DELETED] | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Although Dachbau was a new firm, the agency determined that it had the requisite 5-year experience based on its relationship with Braunwart Zappe, the incumbent contractor on the predecessor contract. As explained by Dachbau in its proposal, Dachbau had assumed the management and assets of Braunwart and had completed performance of the incumbent contract. Dachbau's proposal showed that Braunwart had the requisite experience on roofing contracts dating back to 1991. In contrast, while the protester had 5 years of experience, the protester's technical proposal failed to show experience with service order type contracts or experience working several projects simultaneously.