B-310340.3; B-310340.4, McGoldrick Construction Services Corporation, May 16, 2008

B-310340.3; B-310340.4, McGoldrick Construction Services Corporation, May 16, 2008 TITLE: B-310340.3; B-310340.4, McGoldrick Construction Services Corporation, May 16, 2008 BNUMBER: B-310340.3; B-310340.4 DATE: May 16, 2008 ********************************************************************************** B-310340.3; B-310340.4, McGoldrick Construction Services Corporation, May 16, 2008 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: McGoldrick Construction Services Corporation File: B-310340.3; B-310340.4 Date: May 16, 2008 Douglas L. Patin, Esq., and Jeremy Becker-Welts, Esq., Bradley Arant, for the protester. Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Stacey North Willis, Esq., and Charlma Quarles, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, 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 of agency's evaluation of proposals and award decision is denied where the record shows they were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement rules. DECISION McGoldrick Construction Services Corporation protests the award of a contract to Strategic Perspectives Development, LLC (SPD) under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA-101-07-RP-0030, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for construction services at the VA Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. McGoldrick contends that the evaluation of SPD's proposal and the agency's selection of that firm for award were unreasonable and inconsistent with the solicitation's terms. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business set-aside, sought proposals for the award of a fixed-price contract for construction services, including architectural, mechanical, electrical, utility, fire alarm, and fire protection systems work, and asbestos and lead abatement services. RFP at 1. Offerors were advised that the evaluation and award selection would be "made on the basis of both cost and technical considerations most advantageous to the Government," that the technical evaluation factors combined (construction management, past performance, and schedule, listed in descending order of importance) were "approximately equal in importance to cost or price," and that "if the technical proposals are essentially equal, the award will be made on the basis of lowest cost." Id. at 2-3. Cost/price was to be evaluated "on the basis of its realism and acceptability to the Government." Id. For the construction management evaluation factor, offerors were to describe project personnel experience and technical/management approach (including a list of all proposed major subcontractors). Id. at 5-6. The past performance evaluation factor included a subfactor for corporate project experience (regarding recent projects of similar size and scope) and a less important subfactor for client satisfaction; for the evaluation of corporate project experience, offerors were to describe their "experience as a prime contractor, subcontractor or other," with prime contractor experience being most important. Id. at 3, 6-7. For the final technical evaluation factor, schedule, the offeror's proposed schedule was to be evaluated for realism and reasonableness. Id. at 3. Following a successful size status protest, the agency terminated an initial award it had made under the RFP and reevaluated the three remaining technically acceptable proposals to make a new source selection. SPD submitted the lowest-priced proposal (at $2,958,092); the firm's technical proposal received an evaluation score of 58.3 points (out of a possible 100 points). McGoldrick submitted the highest-priced proposal (at $3,917,000); its technical proposal received a score of 78 points. A third offeror's proposal was rated higher for technical merit than SPD's proposal, but lower than McGoldrick's; that firm proposed a price higher than SPD's and lower than McGoldrick's.[1] Having determined that the payment of the price premiums involved in an award to either of the two higher-rated proposals was not warranted in light of the acceptable level of technical competence offered by SPD's substantially lower-priced proposal, the agency concluded that SPD's proposal presented the best value to the agency and made an award to the firm. This protest followed. The protester challenges the evaluation of the awardee's proposal under the corporate project experience subfactor of the past performance factor, arguing that, as a new business, SPD could not have shown corporate experience performing similar work.