PCI-PACWEST, JV

B-410759 Feb 06, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights RORE, Inc., of San Diego, California, protests the Department of the Navy's decision to exclude RORE's proposal from phase 2 of the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62473-14-R-0004, issued by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Southwest, for construction services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of RORE's design experience was improperly based on unstated evaluation criteria and failed to consider information contained in RORE's proposal. 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:      RORE, Inc. File:                B-410759 Date:              February 6, 2015 Isaias Alba IV, Esq., Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Kimi N. Murakami, Esq., and Patrick T. Rothwell, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. V. Paul Clay, Esq., and Katie Slayton, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the evaluation of protester’s experience is denied where the record establishes that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION RORE, Inc., of San Diego, California, protests the Department of the Navy’s decision to exclude RORE’s proposal from phase 2 of the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62473-14-R-0004, issued by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Southwest, for construction services.  The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of RORE’s design experience was improperly based on unstated evaluation criteria and failed to consider information contained in RORE’s proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, which was issued as an 8(a) small business set-aside, provided for a two-phase procurement under the design/build source selection procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.3.  RFP at 4, 10-11.  The solicitation sought proposals to provide construction services at various locations within NAVFAC’s Southwest area of responsibility.  Id. at 4.  The types of projects contemplated by the solicitation included new construction, renovation, and repair of office buildings, school buildings, hospitals, auditoriums, fire stations, gymnasiums, hangars, laboratories, and parking lots.  Id. at 144.  In support of the design/build projects, the solicitation advised that each offeror shall possess in‑house capabilities or employ the services of a lead architect-engineering design firm(s) experienced in the design development and coordination of the types of projects listed above.  See id. Offerors were informed that the Navy would award multiple, fixed‑price, indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity contracts (for a base year and 4 option years) on a best‑value basis.  Id. at 10-11, 25, 145.  The estimated maximum value for all contracts combined is $99,000,000.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, Source Selection Plan, at 6.  The RFP stated that under phase 1 of the competition, the agency would evaluate offerors’ proposals based on technical approach, past performance, and, as relevant here, experience.  RFP at 13-17. With regard to the phase 1 experience factor, the solicitation provided detailed proposal instructions that required offerors, among other things, to separately demonstrate both relevant construction and relevant design experience.  See id. at 11‑16.  Specifically, the design experience instructions permitted an offeror to rely on the experience of a design subcontractor to demonstrate design experience, and stated that the offeror and any proposed lead design firm(s) would be evaluated as a team.[1]  Id. at 15, 144.  The solicitation advised that offerors were to submit a maximum of five relevant design experience projects (using data sheets included with the RFP) for their proposed design team, that best demonstrate design experience similar in size, scope, and complexity to the requirement.[2]  Id. at 14-15; exh.