Tabcon Inc.

B-411554 Aug 18, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tabcon, Inc., of Gilbert, Arizona, protests the issuance of a task order to Brasfield & Gorrie LLC, of Birmingham, Alabama, by the General Services Administration (GSA) under contract No. GS-07P-99-HHD-0062 for design-build services at land ports of entry in Texas and New Mexico. Tabcon argues that the agency misevaluated its technical proposal and made a flawed best-value tradeoff decision. 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: Tabcon, Inc. File: B-411554 Date: August 18, 2015 Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., and Kristin E. Zachman, Esq., Bailey & Bailey, PC, for the protester. Douglas Patin, Esq., Lisa A. Markman, Esq., and Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC, an intervenor. Helen Y. Kearns, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s non-price proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 2. Protest challenging the source selection authority’s best value tradeoff decision is denied where the record shows that the decision was rational and adequately documents the agency’s decision to select a higher-rated, higher-priced offeror. DECISION Tabcon, Inc., of Gilbert, Arizona, protests the issuance of a task order to Brasfield & Gorrie LLC, of Birmingham, Alabama, by the General Services Administration (GSA) under contract No. GS-07P-99-HHD-0062[1] for design-build services at land ports of entry in Texas and New Mexico. Tabcon argues that the agency misevaluated its technical proposal and made a flawed best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The request for proposals (RFP), issued on January 28, 2015, sought proposals from various indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract holders to provide design-build services to construct inspection canopies, support offices and associated truck circulation for the land ports of entry at five locations in Texas and New Mexico for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Agency Report (AR), exh. 21, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report, at 1. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government, technical and price factors considered. RFP at 2. Offerors were instructed that the RFP set forth minimum requirements, and invited them to increase the quantity and quality of services to be provided with their proposals. Id. The technical evaluation factors were as follows, listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical and management approach, (2) design build team past performance and experience, and (3) key personnel past performance and experience. Id. at 3. Technical quality was to be significantly more important than price. However, the RFP instructed that as “proposals become equal in their technical merit, the cost or price becomes more important.” Id. The technical and management approach factor was concerned with the offeror’s “understanding of the project requirements and the management approach.” Id. Offerors were required to submit written plans to address 11 specific elements under the factor, including: (1) approach to managing and coordinating simultaneous construction activities at multiple construction sites; (2) approach to managing and delivering a project of the magnitude and complexity of this project under budgetary and time constraints; and (3) identifying risks associated with this project and how the offeror planned to manage and mitigate identified risks as well as how they managed similar risks on previous projects. Id. at 6. Offerors were also instructed to describe their long range plans for securing and maintaining the resources necessary to complete the project, and to provide an organizational chart, design and construction quality control plan (QCP), safety plan, management plan and project schedule. Id. at 6-7. Under the design build team past performance and experience factor, the agency was to consider the ability of the design firm, the construction firm and the modular building manufacturing firm to provide design and construction services for multiple projects/programs at separate geographically dispersed locations. Id. at 7. Offerors were to provide at least two similar projects for the design and construction firms, and six similar modular building projects completed by the modular building manufacturing firm. Id. at 7-8.