Southwind Construction Services, LLC

B-410333.2 Jan 21, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Southwind Construction Services, LLC, of Edmond, Oklahoma, protests the award of a contract to HGL Construction, Inc., of Midwest City, Oklahoma, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912BV-14-R-0064, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for various design build and construction services within the Corps' southwestern division boundaries, and the Tulsa district. Southwind argues that the agency failed to conduct the price evaluation consistent with the RFP's stated evaluation criteria, and that the agency conducted an unequal and unreasonable technical evaluation. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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:      Southwind Construction Services, LLC File:                B-410333.2 Date:              January 21, 2015 Marvin Laws, Esq., Robert L. Magrini, Esq., and Sarah Brockhaus, Esq., Hayes Magrini & Gatewood, for the protester. David A. Rose, Esq., Rose Consulting Law Firm, LLC, for HGL Construction, Inc., an intervenor. Matthew R. Keiser, Esq., Lauren Williams, Esq., Ronald Goodeyon, Esq., Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency’s price evaluation is denied where the evaluation was based on the offerors’ price proposals for an initial seed project task order, in accordance with the solicitation, and where the agency reasonably found the awardee’s price, as well as the awardee’s rates, to be fair and reasonable. 2.  Protest challenging agency’s determination that the proposals of the protester and awardee were technically equal is denied where the agency’s evaluation considered the qualitative aspects of each proposal and was not based upon a mechanical counting of the strengths and weaknesses. DECISION Southwind Construction Services, LLC, of Edmond, Oklahoma, protests the award of a contract to HGL Construction, Inc., of Midwest City, Oklahoma, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912BV-14-R-0064, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for various design build and construction services within the Corps’ southwestern division boundaries, and the Tulsa district.  Southwind argues that the agency failed to conduct the price evaluation consistent with the RFP’s stated evaluation criteria, and that the agency conducted an unequal and unreasonable technical evaluation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was issued on April 22, 2014, as a small business set-aside, contemplated a single-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) task‑order contract (which the agency terms a “SATOC”) on a fixed-price basis for a 1‑year base period and four 1‑year options.[1]  RFP at 3‑000010.[2]  The RFP also anticipated the issuance of an initial “seed project” task order in conjunction with contract award.  Id. at 3-000021.  The RFP established a two-phased competition.  During the first phase, firms were to submit performance capability proposals, which were to be evaluated using three evaluation factors (listed in descending order of importance):  specialized experience, past performance, and organization/technical approach.  RFP at 3‑000020, 24.  Firms were informed that the agency would select up to five firms to continue to the second phase of the competition.  Id. at 3-000020.  Price was not an evaluation factor during this phase.  Id. at 3-000024, 32. During the second phase, firms were to submit technical and price proposals addressing an initial seed project task order, which consisted of installing heating, cooling, and ventilation for a building at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  RFP amend. 3 at 11‑000008.  The RFP provided that award would be made on a best‑value basis, considering the following four factors:  (1) design technical; (2) remaining performance capability; (3) phase 1 proposal roll‑up rating; (4) and price.  RFP amend.