B-298239; B-298239.2, PPG-CMS-PSI JV, July 19, 2006

B-298239; B-298239.2, PPG-CMS-PSI JV, July 19, 2006 TITLE: B-298239; B-298239.2, PPG-CMS-PSI JV, July 19, 2006 BNUMBER: B-298239; B-298239.2 DATE: July 19, 2006 *************************************************** B-298239; B-298239.2, PPG-CMS-PSI JV, July 19, 2006 Decision Matter of: PPG-CMS-PSI JV File: B-298239; B-298239.2 Date: July 19, 2006 Leslie Vallie for the protester. Joseph G. Councill Jr., Esq., Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest arguing that agency's evaluation of proposals under solicitation set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned (SDVO) small business concerns was improper because the agency allegedly selected for award firms that were not valid small businesses or qualified SDVO small business concerns is dismissed; protest ultimately involves the question of the status of the awardees as eligible small business and SDVO small business concerns, matters within the exclusive statutory authority of the Small Business Administration. DECISION PPG-CMS-PSI JV protests the award of a contract to B&M Construction, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W29128F-05-R-0021, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, for construction and design services in the state of Colorado. PPG challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals and argues that B&M is ineligible for award.[1] We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. On December 5, 2005, the Corps of Engineers issued the solicitation as a service-disabled veteran-owned (SDVO) small business set-aside for the award of multiple (not more than three) indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts "to accomplish relatively minor projects" for "miscellaneous construction services with minor design capabilities for miscellaneous projects located at various locations in Colorado", with a base period of 2 years, plus three 1-year options. RFP at 00100 - 10 (as amended).[2] While there was no yearly dollar limit, or limit to the amount of particular task orders issued under the contracts, each contract had a total maximum value of $60 million. Proposals were to be evaluated based on the following factors listed in descending order of importance: (1) design experience; (2) construction experience (design and construction experience were of equal importance); (3) design personnel; (4) construction personnel (design and construction personnel were of equal importance); (5) past performance, design; (6) past performance, construction; (design and construction past performance were of equal importance); (7) project management plan; and (8) price. Price was considered "much less important than" factors 1 through 7. RFP at 00110 - 17. As it relates to the protest, under both the design and construction experience factors, offerors were required to identify three projects they completed within the past 5 years, each with a construction value of at least $1 million. In evaluating offerors' proposals, the agency scored them under each of the seven technical evaluation factors using the following adjectival ratings: exceptional; above average; average; marginal; unacceptable; and neutral. RFP at 00110 -- 6. With regard to price, the RFP required offerors to provide hourly rate information for various construction and design personnel positions, which would be evaluated for reasonableness, realism and completeness. RFP at 00110 -- 16. By the RFP's January 11, 2006 closing date for receipt of proposals, the Corps had received a total of 10 proposals, including the proposals submitted by PPG and B&M. In evaluating PPG's proposal, the Corps assigned PPG the following technical factor ratings: (1) design experience -- average; (2) construction experience -- marginal; (3) design personnel -- above average; (4) construction personnel -- marginal; (5) past performance, design -- above average; (6) past performance, construction -- marginal; and (7) project management plan -- average. With these ratings, PPG was ranked seventh of the ten offerors. Agency Report (AR) Tab 5, Source Selection Authority Report, Apr. 6, 2006, at 7. On April 17, the Corps made awards to the three most highly rated offerors: (1) NDG Constructors JV; (2) enVision-Kurtz JV; and (3) B&M Construction, which had teamed with two other firms, Merrick & Company and Torix General Contractors. Upon learning of the award decisions, PPG filed a protest with the Corps dated April 21 challenging B&M's eligibility as an SDVO small business concern and challenging its small business size status.