Ronsons SDVOSB P&L JV-1

Case: B-410605 Agency: Department of Defense : Department of the Army : Corps of Engineers Protester: Ronsons SDVOSB P&L JV-1 Date: 2015-01-06 Denied
View full decision with AI analysis on ProtestIntel →
B-410605 Jan 06, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ronsons SDVOSB P&L JV-1, of Oak Harbor, Washington, protests the award of a contract to Glen/Mar Construction, Inc., of Clackamas, Oregon, by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, under invitation for bids (IFB) No. W912DW-14-C-0029 for electrical upgrades at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington. The protester alleges that the awardee's bid should have been rejected because the awardee's bid was materially unbalanced, and the awardee relied on a subcontractor that lacked a required certification. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Ronsons SDVOSB P&L JV-1 File: B-410605 Date: January 6, 2015 Lucas R. Yonkman, for the protester. Joaquin M. Hernandez, Esq., Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C., for Glen/Mar Construction, Inc., an intervenor. Siri C. Nelson, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging that the awardee’s bid should have been rejected as nonresponsive because it was materially unbalanced is denied where the record shows that the agency conducted a reasonable price analysis. 2. Protest alleging that the awardee’s proposal should have been rejected as technically unacceptable for relying on an unqualified subcontractor is denied because it fails to state a factually or legally sufficient basis for protest. DECISION Ronsons SDVOSB P&L JV-1, of Oak Harbor, Washington, protests the award of a contract to Glen/Mar Construction, Inc., of Clackamas, Oregon, by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, under invitation for bids (IFB) No. W912DW-14-C-0029 for electrical upgrades at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington. The protester alleges that the awardee’s bid should have been rejected because the awardee’s bid was materially unbalanced, and the awardee relied on a subcontractor that lacked a required certification. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 12, 2014, the agency issued the IFB for electrical upgrades at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, as a set-aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. See, e.g., IFB at 00 72 00. The IFB contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract. Id. at 00 21 00. The electrical work to be performed was divided into seven contract line item numbers (CLIN). The base scope of work included the first four CLINs, and the other three CLINs were for optional work. Id. at 00 11 00-5. Award was to be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis. See id. at 00 21 00 (incorporating, by reference, FAR clause 52.214-19, Contract Award--Sealed Bidding--Construction (AUG 1996)). The agency received eight bids in response to the IFB. See, e.g., Contracting Officer’s (CO) Statement (Nov. 3, 2014) at 5. The independent government estimate (IGE) and bids (from lowest to highest) for the base scope of work were:   CLIN 0001 CLIN 0002 CLIN 0003 CLIN 0004 TOTAL IGE $78,824 $66,117 $1,019,715 $64,851 $1,229,507 Ronsons (Offeror 7) $92,983 $113,456 $978,245 $102,816 $1,287,500 Glen/Mar (Offeror 3) $137,842 $110,716 $1,176,356 $119,865 $1,544,779 Offeror 8 $54,377 $76,600 $1,343,457 $76,585 $1,551,019 Offeror 5 $398,985 $40,027 $1,141,792 $50,296 $1,631,100 Offeror 1 $111,500 $149,000 $1,281,000 $114,000 $1,655,500 Offeror 2 $125,000 $175,000 $1,300,000 $120,000 $1,720,000 Offeror 4 $96,560 $126,976 $1,482,689 $183,692 $1,889,917 Offeror 6 $70,000 $70,000 $1,865,000 $60,000 $2,065,000 See AR, Tab 10, Abstract of Bids, ¶¶ 8, 9. The IGE and bids (from lowest to highest) for the optional work were:   CLIN 0005 CLIN 0006 CLIN 0007 TOTAL IGE $341,666 $342,418 $23,370 $707,454 Offeror 6 $30,000 $250,000 $40,000 $320,000 Offeror 4 $39,470 $262,885 $39,470 $341,825 Glen/Mar (Offeror 3) $47,861 $266,510 $38,440 $352,811 Offeror 5 $48,466 $273,730 $39,603 $361,799 Offeror 8 $51,992 $330,772 $47,071 $429,835 Ronsons (Offeror 7) $296,175 $307,535 $32,913 $636,623 Offeror 2 $325,000 $325,000 $50,000 $700,000 Offeror 1 $388,000 $400,000 $51,000 $839,000 Id. Glen/Mar’s total evaluated price, inclusive of the base and optional CLINs, of $1,897,590 was the lowest-priced bid; Ronsons’ total evaluated price of $1,924,123 was second lowest. Id. ¶ 6. The agency selected Glen/Mar’s lowest-priced, technically acceptable bid for award after concluding that Glen/Mar’s bid was reasonable and not materially unbalanced.

Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...