Phillips & Jordan, Inc.

B-411551 Aug 25, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Phillips and Jordan, Inc. (P&J), of Knoxville, Tennessee, protests the elimination of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912EP-14-R-0016, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, for the construction of the C-44 Reservoir/ Stormwater Treatment Area Project, in Martin County, Florida. P&J argues that its proposal was improperly eliminated from the competition because the agency unreasonably determined that its proposal was unacceptable under two evaluation factors. 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: Phillips and Jordan, Inc. File: B-411551 Date: August 25, 2015 Darwin A. Hindman, III, Esq., and Joshua A. Mullen, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., for the protester. Susan E. Symanski, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation and rejection of the protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the record reflects that the agency reasonably found that the protester’s proposal took exception to the solicitation’s requirements, and failed to address this defect during discussions. DECISION Phillips and Jordan, Inc. (P&J), of Knoxville, Tennessee, protests the elimination of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912EP-14-R-0016, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, for the construction of the C-44 Reservoir/ Stormwater Treatment Area Project, in Martin County, Florida. P&J argues that its proposal was improperly eliminated from the competition because the agency unreasonably determined that its proposal was unacceptable under two evaluation factors. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the RFP on December 29, 2014, seeking the construction of an above-ground reservoir, discharge canal, and associated structures to capture water from the C-44 Basin in Martin County, Florida. The solicitation anticipates the issuance of a fixed-price contract, with a period of performance of 1,552 calendar days, plus 90 days for grass establishment, after the notice to proceed. RFP at 79. The solicitation provides for award on a best value basis, considering the following four factors: (1) technical merit, (2) past performance, (3) small business participation, and (4) price. RFP at 19. The technical merit factor consists of two subfactors: (1) demonstrated experience, and (2) implementation plan and construction. Id. Both technical merit subfactors are further divided into subelements. The RFP states that, “[t]o receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than ‘Acceptable’ must be achieved for the technical factor (to include all the subfactors) and Small Business Participation,” and that “[a] rating of Unacceptable for any individual subfactor/subelement will result in an overall rating of Unacceptable for the entire Factor.” Id. The Army received proposals by the initial closing date of February 26, 2015. Contracting Officer (CO) Statement at 4. After an initial review of proposals, the contracting officer established a competitive range of all offerors, including P&J. The agency then conducted discussions with offerors, and provided evaluation notices (ENs) which described issues identified by the agency regarding the offerors’ proposals. P&J’s EN stated that P&J’s proposal was found unacceptable under both of the technical merit subfactors, based on deficiencies, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses assessed under the subelements under these subfactors. AR, Tab 11, Revised Evaluation Notice (EN) (Apr. 2, 2015), at 1-6. As relevant here, the agency assessed a deficiency to the protester’s proposal under the implementation plan subelement of the second technical subfactor, finding that P&J improperly qualified its proposal based on the following language: “P&J states that P&J management reserves [the] right to integrate other subcontractors into [the] project.” Id. at 4.