ACC Construction-McKnight Joint Venture, LLC

B-411073 Apr 30, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ACC Construction-McKnight Joint Venture, LLC (ACC), of Augusta, Georgia, protests the award of a contract to Walsh Group Ventures, of Chicago, Illinois, by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912QR-14-R-0022 for construction of a high school at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. ACC alleges the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. 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: ACC Construction-McKnight Joint Venture, LLC File: B-411073 Date: April 30, 2015 Karl Dix, Jr., Esq., Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP, for the protester. Joseph J. Dyer, Esq., Bennett D. Greenberg, Esq., and Rhett E. Petcher, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for Walsh Group Ventures, the intervenor. Travis D. Van Ort, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Matthew T. Crosby, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging agency unreasonably evaluated protester’s construction schedule is denied where record reflects protester’s schedule lacked adequate detail and evaluation was otherwise reasonable and consistent with terms of solicitation. DECISION ACC Construction-McKnight Joint Venture, LLC (ACC), of Augusta, Georgia, protests the award of a contract to Walsh Group Ventures, of Chicago, Illinois, by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912QR-14-R-0022 for construction of a high school at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. ACC alleges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on June 20, 2014, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for the construction of a high school at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. RFP at 1, 4.[1] The solicitation provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors, listed in descending order of importance: past performance; management; small business participation plan; and price. RFP at 5-6. The management factor included two subfactors: management plan and schedule. Id. at 6. Under the management factor and subfactors, proposals were to be assigned adjectival ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. RFP at 7, 10. As relevant here, the unacceptable rating was defined as: “Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.” Id. at 7. A deficiency was defined as a “material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.” Id. Under the schedule subfactor, the solicitation instructed offerors to provide a schedule showing how the work would be performed. RFP at 10. The schedule was to show, among other things, “the construction phases for [the] storm water box culvert installation and stabilization.” Id. at 11. The solicitation stated the schedule would be evaluated “to assess the strength of [the offeror’s] understanding of events associated with the construction process and completion requirements.” Id. In addition, the solicitation included numerous drawings. Several drawings depicted a storm drain system the contractor was to construct by connecting the aforementioned new storm water box culvert to part of an existing storm drain system. See Contracting Officer’s Statement ¶¶ 9.f-9.h. As relevant here, two drawings provided a “Site Demolition Plan” and included the following note: The existing 78” and 36” [storm drain] pipes are to remain operational until the new box culvert is installed. After the box culvert is installed and connected to the existing 78” and 36” pipes the contractor shall concrete slurry fill and abandon in place the specified portion [of the existing drainage system]. AR, Tab 5, Drwg. CD101, Site Demolition Plan, at 1; AR, Tab 6, Drwg. CD102, Site Demolition Plan, at 1. Consistent with this note, other drawings included notes stating: “Contractor to Remove Portion of Existing Pipe after New Box Culvert Installation” and “Existing Pipe to Be Removed after New Box Culvert Installation.” AR, Tab 34, Drwgs. CD505 and CD506, Grading and Drainage Details, at 1-2. The agency received four proposals in response to the solicitation. Contracting Officer’s Statement ¶ 13. A source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated the proposals. Id. The SSEB assigned strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies to the proposals, as well as ratings under each of the factors and subfactors.