B-310003; B-310003.2, Doyon-American Mechanical, JV; NAJV, LLC, November 15, 2007

B-310003; B-310003.2, Doyon-American Mechanical, JV; NAJV, LLC, November 15, 2007 TITLE: B-310003; B-310003.2, Doyon-American Mechanical, JV; NAJV, LLC, November 15, 2007 BNUMBER: B-310003; B-310003.2 DATE: November 15, 2007 ********************************************************************************* B-310003; B-310003.2, Doyon-American Mechanical, JV; NAJV, LLC, November 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: Doyon-American Mechanical, JV; NAJV, LLC File: B-310003; B-310003.2 Date: November 15, 2007 Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., Isaias Alba IV, Esq., and Gunjan R. Talati, Esq., PilieroMazza PLLC, for Doyon-American Mechanical, JV; and Traeger Machetanz, Esq., Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker, LLP, for NAJV, LLC, the protesters. William A. Roberts III, Esq., Richard B. O'Keeffe, Jr., Esq., William J. Grimaldi, Esq., and John R. Prairie, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Chugach Government Services, Inc.; and William K. Walker, Esq., Walker Reausaw, for Alutiiq International Solutions, LLC, the intervenors. Phillip E. Santerre, Esq., and Gregory W. Vanagel, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where solicitation provided that evaluation of an offeror's experience would be based on the offeror's submission of previously performed projects, and specifically provided that only projects for which the offeror or a primary teaming partner was the prime contractor should be submitted, the awardees' submission of projects that were performed by the awardees' parent/affiliate corporations, and the agency's reliance on such projects in evaluating the awardees' experience, was improper. DECISION Doyon-American Mechanical, JV and NAJV, LLC protest the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' award of contracts to Alutiiq International Solutions (AIS), Bristol Design Build Services, LLC (BDBS) and Chugach Government Services (CGS), pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W911KB-07-R-0006 to provide construction services in Alaska. Among other things, the protesters maintain that the agency violated specific solicitation provisions regarding the agency's evaluation of offerors' experience. We sustain the protests. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued in February 2007 and contemplated multiple awards of contracts to perform various construction-related services throughout Alaska on a task-order basis.[1] The solicitation contemplated award of up to six contracts, with a maximum of three contracts awarded pursuant to full and open competition, and three contracts awarded as set-aside contracts under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. The awards challenged by Doyon and NAJV are the 8(a) set-aside contracts. Offerors were advised that award would be made on the basis of "best overall value," and that the source selection decisions would reflect the agency's evaluation of two factors--offerors' qualifications and proposed prices; the solicitation established that offerors' qualifications would be "significantly more important" than price. RFP at 1886. Within the qualifications factor, the solicitation established the following subfactors, listed in descending order of importance: construction experience, past performance, design experience, and execution plan. With regard to the most important evaluation subfactor, construction experience, the solicitation provided that proposals would be evaluated "based on projects . . . similar in nature, scope, and complexity to the project types identified in this solicitation," and provided that the agency's evaluation would be based on the offerors' submission of no more than three past projects for each type of experience required.[2] RFP at 20, 1888. The solicitation further directed as follows: Only those projects for which the Offeror or a primary teaming partner was the Prime Contractor should be submitted. The projects selected should clearly demonstrate the construction capabilities of the Offeror on projects that are similar in scope and magnitude to the work required in this RFP. RFP at 19. [3] On or before the April 13, 2007 closing date, proposals were submitted by six firms qualified to compete for the 8(a) set-aside contracts, including AIS, BDBS, CGS, Doyon, and NAJV.