Bethel-Webcor JV-1

B-410772 Feb 12, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bethel-Webcor JV, of Anchorage, Alaska, protests its exclusion from the second phase of competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62473-14-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Navy for the award of three or more indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) multiple-award contracts for construction and repair work at various locations within the Southwest United States. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of Bethel-Webcor'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:      Bethel-Webcor JV File:                B-410772 Date:              February 12, 2015 Jonathan A. DeMella, Esq., Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, for the protester. Katie Slayton, Esq., Paul Clay, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency. Gary R. Allen, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that an agency unreasonably failed to consider the experience and past performance of a protester’s affiliate is denied where the protester’s proposal did not establish that the affiliate would have any meaningful involvement in contract performance. 2.  Protest that an agency did not evaluate the protester’s proposal in accordance with the solicitation’s terms, and applied unstated evaluation criteria, is denied where the record reflects that the agency’s evaluation was consistent with terms of solicitation. DECISION Bethel-Webcor JV,[1] of Anchorage, Alaska, protests its exclusion from the second phase of competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62473-14-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Navy for the award of three or more indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) multiple-award contracts for construction and repair work at various locations within the Southwest United States.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of Bethel-Webcor’s proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued as a competitive small business set-aside, provided for multiple-award ID/IQ contracts for new construction, renovation and repair of general buildings at various locations, but anticipated that the majority of work would be performed in San Diego, California.  RFP at 1.  The solicitation anticipated the award of contracts with a base year and 4 option years, under which fixed-price task orders would be issued.[2]  Id. at 3.  The contract’s estimated maximum dollar value, including the base year and all option years, is $99 million; the task order range is $8 million to $15 million.  Id. at 1. Offerors were informed that award would be made on a best-value basis, using the two-phase design-build procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.3.  RFP at 8.  The RFP stated that the phase 1 evaluation would result in selecting five of the most qualified offerors, which would be invited to submit a phase 2 proposal.[3] The RFP advised that the agency intended to make award without discussions or any other contact with offerors concerning proposals.  Id.  Further, the RFP cautioned offerors not to assume that they would be contacted or afforded any opportunity to qualify, discuss, or revise their proposals.  Id. For phase 1, offerors were informed that proposals would be evaluated for technical approach, experience, and past performance.  RFP at 10-13.  Under the technical approach factor, the RFP stated that proposals would be rated either acceptable or unacceptable, and that a proposal rated as unacceptable would not advance to phase 2.  Id. at 11.  The RFP provided a form, “Offeror Team Composition and Management,” on which offerors were to provide narrative information regarding the primary members, composition, and management of the proposed design-build team.  The form stated, “[i]f Offeror is a Joint Venture, Mentor-Protégé, or other legal partnership, list each partner as a separate team member,” and provided spaces for inserting each team member’s name, role, contractual relationship to the team, and role and responsibilities in performance of the contract.  RFP, exh. A.  The form also instructed offerors to “discuss the rationale for proposing this team arrangement.”  Id.  As relevant here, the RFP’s instructions for completing this form stated, If the experience of an entity is being claimed in Factor 2 [experience], that entity must be named in the above narrative and organizational chart. Id.