B-309740; B-309740.2, C. Young Construction, Inc., October 15, 2007

B-309740; B-309740.2, C. Young Construction, Inc., October 15, 2007 TITLE: B-309740; B-309740.2, C. Young Construction, Inc., October 15, 2007 BNUMBER: B-309740; B-309740.2 DATE: October 15, 2007 ******************************************************************* B-309740; B-309740.2, C. Young Construction, Inc., October 15, 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: C. Young Construction, Inc. File: B-309740; B-309740.2 Date: October 15, 2007 David T. Ralston, Jr., Esq., and Frank S. Murray, Esq., Foley & Lardner LLP, for the protester. Damon A. Martin, 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 challenging agency's evaluation of protester's proposal is denied where evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation's evaluation terms. DECISION C. Young Construction, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal and the award of a contract to Sauer, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N69450-07-R-1266, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the construction of the P333V Fleet Support Facility at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida. The project involves the construction of a sensitive compartmented information facility; optional work includes installation of a parking lot, sidewalks, and sanitary service. C. Young challenges the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of its proposal, rated as poor, and its subsequent elimination from further consideration for award for proposing a single individual to fill three of the four required key personnel positions. The protester contends that the RFP did not prohibit its proposed staffing approach and that the agency unreasonably determined that its proposal of one individual for multiple key personnel positions failed to meet stated requirements. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on May 10, 2007, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to the firm submitting the proposal deemed to offer the best value to the agency; technical merit (evaluated under four equally weighted technical subfactors--past performance, relevant experience, technical qualifications, and small business subcontracting) was approximately equal in importance to price. RFP at 24, 25. Offerors were advised that, since discussions might not be conducted, their best terms should be included in their initial proposals. Id. at 23. Adjectival ratings (ranging from exceptional to poor) were to be assigned to the proposals under each technical evaluation factor. The rating of "poor" was defined as failing to meet stated requirements of the RFP, indicating an insufficient understanding of the requirements, lacking essential information, presenting an unacceptable level of risk to the government, and containing deficiencies that require a major revision of the proposal. Id. at 25. Offerors were advised that a proposal receiving a technical subfactor rating of poor would be rated poor overall, and that the government reserved the right to not make award to a firm with a technical proposal rated marginal or poor. Id. Special construction features were noted in the RFP, and project specifications provided detailed staffing requirements and descriptions of the work to be performed. The RFP noted, for example, that the facility was located adjacent to a hangar and apron construction project at the air station, requiring special consideration of the site's surroundings and coordination of work efforts (for instance, involving flight line fencing work, use of equipment near landing areas and taxiways, and aircraft operating schedules). Id. at 24. Project specifications provided additional requirements regarding, among other things, quality control, airfield operation and safety, and key personnel responsibilities. Project Specification sect. 013513, para. 3.1.1; sect. 013529, para. 1.6.2; sect. 014500.0020, para. 1.5-1.16. For evaluation under the RFP's technical qualifications subfactor, each proposal was to include information about the qualifications and experience of the individuals proposed for four key personnel positions: Project Manager; Project Superintendent; Quality Control (QC) Manager; and Safety Specialist (also referred to as the Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO)). RFP at 29.