Trade Eastern, Inc.

B-411857 Nov 09, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Trade Eastern, Inc., of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, a small business, protests the exclusion of its proposal under phase I of a two-step competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912QR-15-R-0026, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers, for the renovation and repair of the Ashley, Pennsylvania Army Reserve Center and organizational maintenance structure. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Trade Eastern, Inc. File:  B-411857 Date:  November 9, 2015 Douglas F. Trumbower, for the protester. Richard L. Carr Jr., Esq., Dunlevey, Mahan & Furry, for Butt Construction Company, Inc., an intervenor. Jennifer M. Payton, Esq., Department of the Army, 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 Protest of the exclusion of the protester’s proposal from phase I of a two-phase design-build competition is denied where the agency reasonably found that the protester was not among the most highly-qualified offerors, and therefore did not qualify to proceed to the phase II competition. DECISION Trade Eastern, Inc., of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, a small business, protests the exclusion of its proposal under phase I of a two-step competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912QR-15-R-0026, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers, for the renovation and repair of the Ashley, Pennsylvania Army Reserve Center and organizational maintenance structure. We deny the protest.[1] BACKGROUND The solicitation anticipates the award of a fixed-price design-build contract for the renovation and repair of the 42,000 square foot Luzerne County Army Reserve Center and 4,300 square foot organizational maintenance shop.  RFP at 6.  Proposals were to be evaluated in two phases, and only those offerors whose proposals were found acceptable under phase I would be eligible to compete in phase II.  The solicitation further provided that up to a maximum of five of the most highly‑qualified phase I offerors would be selected to participate in phase II.  RFP at 6.  Under phase I, proposals were to be evaluated in three areas:  past performance, technical/management plan, and pro forma information.  Id.  Price was not to be submitted in the phase I proposals.  Id. at 8.  Under phase II, proposals were to be evaluated under the following areas:  technical, management plan, small business participation plan, price, and pro forma information.  Id. at 23.  The RFP contemplates award on a “best overall value” basis.  Id. at 21.  The agency stated that the estimated construction cost was between $10,000,000 and $25,000,000.  Contracting Officer Statement at 1.  Regarding past performance, the offerors were to provide descriptions of up to three design/build projects that are “similar to this project in size and scope,” and that were completed or substantially completed within the last 7 years.  RFP at 11.  The solicitation provided the following regarding the “similar . . . in size and scope” requirement: Projects considered similar in size would be a minimum of 25,000 square feet.  Projects considered similar in scope to this project include the new construction or renovation of National Guard Armories, Army Reserve Centers, Armed Forces Training Centers, office complexes, and educational facilities. Id. at 11.   The solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate the relevancy and recency of each past performance project identified in an offeror’s proposal and assign it one of the following relevancy ratings:  very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant.  Id. at 9, 12.  The agency would then assign a performance confidence rating to each offeror based on the degree of successful performance for all of the recent and relevant projects identified in the offeror’s proposal.  Offerors were to receive one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings:  substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown confidence (neutral).  Id. at 9.  Of relevance to this protest, unknown confidence (neutral) is defined as: No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. Id. The technical/management plan factor required, among other things, a description of the role and interaction of the design team with the contracting team during construction.  Id.