B-298694.7, Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., June 22, 2007

B-298694.7 Jun 22, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBR) protests the award by the Department of the Navy of three global contingency construction contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62470-06-R-6002 to Fluor International, Inc. (Fluor), URS-IAP, LLC (URS), and Atlantic Contingency Constructors, LLC (ACC). KBR contends that the agency misevaluated proposals under the technical factors and thus made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298694.7, Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., June 22, 2007 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: Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. File: B-298694.7 Date: June 22, 2007 James J. McCullough, Esq., Steven A. Alerding, Esq., and Deneen J. Melander, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for the protester. Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., David T. Hickey, Esq., Dorn C. McGrath III, Esq., L. James D'Agostino, Esq., and Emily C. Parker, Esq., Greenberg Traurig LLP, for Atlantic Contingency Constructors, LLC; William A. Roberts III, Esq., and Richard B. O'Keeffe Jr., Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Fluor International, Inc.; and J. Alex Ward, Esq., Edward Jackson, Esq., Richard W. Arnholt, Esq., and Bradley A. Areheart, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for URS-IAP, LLC, the intervenors. Richard Welsh, Esq., Theodore H. Hoffmann, Esq., Sandra C. Simmons, Esq., and Keleigh L. Biggins, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency conducted an unreasonable technical evaluation of the protester's proposal is denied, where the agency provided a comprehensive, detailed record that fully supports the agency's assessment of strengths and weaknesses in the protester's proposal and demonstrates that the agency conducted the evaluation consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. DECISION Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBR) protests the award by the Department of the Navy of three global contingency construction contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62470-06-R-6002 to Fluor International, Inc. (Fluor), URS-IAP, LLC (URS), and Atlantic Contingency Constructors, LLC (ACC). KBR contends that the agency misevaluated proposals under the technical factors and thus made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND This acquisition is for construction and related engineering services in response to global natural disasters, humanitarian assistance, conflict, or projects with similar characteristics. The RFP contemplated award of up to three cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for a base year with four 1'year options, with a not to exceed aggregate amount of $1 billion for all contracts during the 5'year span. RFP at 3, 56. Award was to be made without discussions unless discussions were otherwise determined to be necessary. RFP at 68. The solicitation provided for award on a –best value— basis, considering corporate experience, past performance, contingency plan, management approach, small business utilization, and cost. The non-cost factors were of equal importance and together were more important than the cost factor. The past performance factor consisted of two subfactors listed in descending order of importance--past performance and safety. The management approach factor consisted of two equally rated subfactors--organization, home office support, and key personnel; and accounting and management systems and procedures. The small business utilization factor consisted of two equally rated subfactors--past performance in small business utilization, and participation of small business concerns for this program. RFP at 68. Eight offerors submitted proposals and, after evaluating these proposals, the agency selected Fluor, URS, and ACC for award. KBR protested the evaluation of proposals under each of the evaluation factors and our Office sustained the protest, identifying flaws in the evaluation of the cost and contingency response plan factors. In addition, we identified four protest grounds where the agency had not adequately responded, such that it was unclear from the record whether the agency's evaluation was reasonable.[1] We recommended that the agency reevaluate proposals under the technical and cost factors, conduct discussions if determined necessary, and make a new source selection decision. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., B-298694, et al., Nov. 16, 2006, 2006 CPD para.