Jay Shapiro & Associates, Inc.

B-411174 Jun 05, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Jay Shapiro & Associates, Inc. (JS&A), of Far Hills, New Jersey, a small business, protests the decision by the General Services Administration (GSA) to not award it one of the multiple contracts awarded under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-03P-14-DX-C-0031 for construction management services. JS&A asserts that it should have received one of the anticipated awards because the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued the protester a Certificate of Competency (COC). We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Jay Shapiro & Associates, Inc. File: B-411174 Date: June 5, 2015 Jay Shapiro, Jay Shapiro & Associates, Inc., for the protester. Robert J. McCall, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Contention that agency improperly failed to award a contract to the protester, after the Small Business Administration issued the protester a Certificate of Competency, is denied where the agency’s subsequent decision to award contracts to firms other than the protester was not based on matters relating to the protester’s responsibility. DECISION Jay Shapiro & Associates, Inc. (JS&A), of Far Hills, New Jersey, a small business, protests the decision by the General Services Administration (GSA) to not award it one of the multiple contracts awarded under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS‑03P-14-DX-C-0031 for construction management services. JS&A asserts that it should have received one of the anticipated awards because the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued the protester a Certificate of Competency (COC).[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on July 2, 2014, contemplated the award of two categories of multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts: one group of multiple-award contracts would be set aside for small businesses, and anticipated the issuance of task orders valued at less than $750,000 or less; the second group of multiple-award contracts would be awarded on an unrestricted basis, and anticipate the issuance of task orders valued at over $750,000. RFP at 9 and 221. The RFP contemplated awards for a 1-year base period with four 1-year options. Id. at 8. This protest concerns the unrestricted component, as JS&A elected to compete only for the unrestricted component.[2] The RFP stated that contract awards would be made on a “best value” basis. Proposals submitted in response to the unrestricted component of the RFP were to be assessed under the following technical factors and weights: (1) relevant past experience (30 percent), (2) relevant firm past performance (30 percent), (3) management plan (20 percent), (4) key personnel (10 percent), and (5) small business subcontracting methodology (10 percent). RFP at 221; AR, Tab 12, Final SSEB Report at 2. The RFP stated that the agency would calculate prices by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the base period. Id. at 228. For purposes of award, the solicitation stated that the non-price factors were approximately equal in importance to price. Id. Seventeen firms, including JS&A, responded to the RFP for the unrestricted component of the procurement, by the August 6 due date. The agency’s source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated the technical proposals. Based on a price evaluation they considered only offerors’ base year prices, the source selection authority determined that five offerors, including JS&A, offered the best value. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Evaluation of Base Year Pricing. The contracting officer, however, found that JS&A was not a responsible contractor after reviewing the firm’s financial resources, and referred the protester to the SBA for a COC review. AR, Tab 8, GSA Request for COC for JS&A (Nov. 25, 2014). The SBA concluded that JS&A was a responsible contractor, and informed GSA that a COC had been issued to the protester. AR, Tab 9, SBA Notification of COC for JS&A (Dec. 17, 2014). In late December 2014, a new contracting officer and source selection authority were assigned to this procurement. AR at 4. After reviewing the evaluation, the new agency officials concluded that the evaluations and award decisions were flawed because they did not rely on total evaluated prices, as required by the solicitation, but instead were based on an evaluation of base year pricing. Contracting Officer Statement at 3. The agency also found another error regarding the evaluation of another offerors’ past performance. Id. After correcting these errors, the agency made new award decisions, concluding that five proposals merited award; JS&A was not selected for award. AR, Tab 14, Source Selection Decision (Jan. 26, 2015), at 4.