PPCSC/RAC BENNING JV 1, B-296239, July 19, 2005

B-296239 Jul 19, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights PPCSC/RAC BENNING JV 1 protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W9126G-05-R-0013, issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, for design and construction of a complex of prefabricated temporary modular structures at Biggs Army Airfield, Fort Bliss, Texas. We deny the protest. View Decision B-296239, PPCSC/RAC BENNING JV 1, July 19, 2005 Decision Matter of: PPCSC/RAC BENNING JV 1 File: B-296239 Date: July 19, 2005 John E. Jensen, Esq., and Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. Bryan C. Naquin, Esq., and Lloyd R. Crosswhite, Esq., Department of the Army, and Kenneth Dodds, Esq., and John W. Klein, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency decision to include clauses applicable to both construction work and supply work in a solicitation for a complex of prefabricated modular structures that included both types of work was reasonable where the solicitation divided the work into separate line items, many of which were for construction and many for supply. DECISION PPCSC/RAC BENNING JV 1 protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W9126G-05-R-0013, issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, for design and construction of a complex of prefabricated temporary modular structures at Biggs Army Airfield, Fort Bliss, Texas. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued April 4, 2005, sought proposals for design and construction of a complex of prefabricated modular structures to accommodate a large combat unit arriving at Fort Bliss. The scope of the project was for the design and construction of a complete complex, including the assembly of prefabricated structures, to serve as barracks, dining, vehicle maintenance, classroom and administrative facilities, as well as site development, which entailed clearing and grubbing; constructing roadways, parking areas, sidewalks, curbs, and utilities supporting the structures (for example, sewer, storm drainage, gas, water, electrical); and landscaping. The project was divided into four "construction phases," each with a separate completion date, with the final completion date occurring on January 27, 2006. The first 6 line items in the price schedule comprised the base bid and there were 35 optional line items. The 6 base bid line items and the first 6 option line items required prices for the vast bulk of the site-preparation work. The remaining option line items primarily reflected the work associated with providing and installing the prefabricated structures. The solicitation, as issued, required the successful contractor to furnish both performance and payment bonds acceptable to the government at 100 percent of the original contract price (including options exercised at the time of award), as a condition of award. Award was to be made on a "best-value" basis, considering four technical evaluation factors and price. The technical evaluation factors were design and construction past performance, corporate relevant specialized experience, management effectiveness (evaluation of proposed personnel and project management plan), and project duration (evaluation of proposed project schedule). Both the design and construction past performance and corporate relevant specialized experience factors contemplated considering offerors' construction experience on projects within the last 5 years. [1] The first three listed technical evaluation factors were of equal importance, while the fourth factor was worth more than the total weight of the first three factors. Price was approximately equal to the combined weight of the technical factors. PPCSC/RAC, a HUB (Historically Underutilized Business) Zone small business, which supplies and installs prefabricated modular structures, protested that the Corps had improperly characterized the acquisition as one for construction, instead of supply, and had failed to set aside the procurement for small businesses. In its protest, PPCSC/RAC argued that the Corps should have solicited the contract as a supply contract, with the appropriate terms and clauses, instead of the construction clauses, because the predominant effort under the contract involves supplying prefabricated modular structures. [2] PPCSC/RAC contended that because the supply work is the predominant work, the Corps was required to solicit the contract as one for supply and to delete all the clauses in the solicitation associated with construction, in particular the requirements for performance and payment bonds and the evaluation criteria providing for the evaluation of offerors' construction experience.