LOTOS Srl

B-411717.5 Nov 19, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights LOTOS S.r.l., located in Catania, Italy, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the second phase of competition, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N33191-15-R-0821, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for design-build and design-bid-build services to be performed in Sigonella, Italy. LOTOS argues that the agency improperly evaluated its phase one proposal and unreasonably eliminated it from phase two of the competition. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  LOTOS S.r.l. File:  B-411717.5 Date:  November 19, 2015 Herman M. Braude, Esq., and Edward Manchester, Esq., Braude Law Group, PC, for the protester. Kenneth J. Rich, Sr., Esq., Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency. K. Nicole Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In a procurement conducted under two-phase design-build selection procedures, protest of agency’s decision to eliminate protester’s phase one proposal from further competition is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably found the proposal unacceptable under the solicitation’s technical approach factor. DECISION LOTOS S.r.l., located in Catania, Italy, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the second phase of competition, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N33191‑15‑R‑0821, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for design-build and design-bid-build services to be performed in Sigonella, Italy.  LOTOS argues that the agency improperly evaluated its phase one proposal and unreasonably eliminated it from phase two of the competition. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on March 11, 2015, contemplating the award of approximately five indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts, under a multiple‑award construction contract, for a one-year base period and four one-year option periods.  RFP at 18.  The RFP sought the performance of construction projects located in the Sigonella area of operation, including the construction, renovation, repair, and demolition of facilities, waterfronts, airfields, and other related infrastructure, and provided that the agency would issue fixed-price task orders to the awardees for specific projects.  RFP at 9.  The RFP provided for awards to be made on a best-value basis, using a two‑phase evaluation process, and considering the following factors:  (1) technical approach; (2) experience; (3) past performance; (4) safety; (5) technical solution; and (6) price.  Id. at 18.  The RFP established that the technical approach, experience, and past performance factors would be considered during phase one, and required that proposals set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by the RFP.  RFP at 17-18.  The RFP advised offerors that a proposal found unacceptable under the technical approach factor during the first phase of the competition would not be considered during phase two.[1]  Id. at 18. As relevant here, the RFP indicated that, under the technical approach factor, the agency would evaluate the composition and management of the firms proposed as the design-build team.  Id. at 19.  In this regard, the RFP directed offerors to provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction and design firms, the rationale for the proposed arrangement, and the roles, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the firms.  Id.  As part of the narrative, offerors were to include a simple organizational chart that clearly identified the lines of authority between the firms.  Id.  The RFP advised offerors that the assessment of an offeror’s technical approach would be used as a means to evaluate the organizational structure and teaming relationships proposed by the offeror.  Id. In response to the RFP, the agency received fourteen proposals.  Agency Report (AR) at 2.  On June 16, the agency notified unsuccessful offerors, including LOTOS, that their proposals would not be considered during the second phase of the competition, and provided LOTOS with a debriefing on June 19.  Id.  On June 29, LOTOS filed a protest with our Office, alleging that the agency had misevaluated its proposal.  Subsequently, the agency notified our Office of its decision to take corrective action by reevaluating LOTOS’ proposal and making a new source selection decision, if appropriate.  Accordingly, we dismissed the protest as academic.  LOTOS S.r.l., B-411717.1, July 28, 2015 (unpublished decision).  The source selection evaluation board (SSEB) reevaluated LOTOS’ proposal, rating LOTOS unacceptable under the technical approach and experience factors, and assigning LOTOS’ proposal a limited confidence rating under the past performance factor.  ...