West Coast General Corporation

B-411916.2 Dec 14, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights West Coast General Corporation (West Coast), of Poway, California, protests the evaluation and selection decision under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-09P-15-KS-D-00015, issued by the General Services Administration's (GSA), Public Building Service, for repair and alteration services with design-build effort for four designated geographic zones. The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of price proposals and its source selection decision were flawed. We sustain the protest. We sustain 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:West Coast General Corporation File:B-411916.2 Date:December 14, 2015 David S. Demian, Esq., Christopher S. Sillari, Esq., P. Randolph Finch, Jr., Esq., Finch, Thornton & Baird, LLP, for the protester. Bruce D. Rudman, Esq., Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman, for Fast Track Construction Corporation, an intervenor. Mark Ezersky, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.Protest challenging price/cost evaluation scheme as improper because it relied solely on offerors’ proposed general and administrative (G&A) rates as a proxy for price, when first raised after the closing date for receipt of initial proposals, is dismissed as untimely. 2.  Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of price proposals in a procurement anticipating multiple awards of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts is sustained where agency failed to evaluate the offerors’ G&A rates in accordance with solicitation’s requirement for submission of certified financial statements or a Defense Contract Audit Agency report to substantiate the proposed G&A rates, and instead accepted offerors’ informal “commitments” regarding such rates. 3.  Protest challenging agency’s source selection decision is sustained where award determination was based entirely on a mechanical comparison of total technical scores and G&A rates. DECISION West Coast General Corporation (West Coast), of Poway, California, protests the evaluation and selection decision under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-09P-15-KS-D-00015, issued by the General Services Administration’s (GSA), Public Building Service, for repair and alteration services with design-build effort for four designated geographic zones.The protester argues that the agency’s evaluation of price proposals and its source selection decision were flawed. We sustain the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFP, [1] issued on February 13, 2015, under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, was set aside for small businesses.  RFP, Tab 1. [2] The RFP contemplated the award of up to 20 fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) construction contracts for repair and alteration services, with separate contracts to be awarded for four geographic zones within the Pacific Region.[3]RFP, Tab 1; Tab 2 at 2; Tab 3 at 15.The total anticipated period of performance was five years, with a one-year base and four one-year options.Id., Tab 2 at 3.The solicitation contemplated that during this period task orders would be issued with an estimated value between $150,000 to $500,000; however, the total maximum value for the entire five-year period was not to exceed $50 million.  RFP, Tab 1; Tab 2 at 23; Tab 3 at 4.  At issue here are the awards for zone 3. [4] The solicitation provided that award would be made on a best-value basis, considering the following evaluation factors:prior experience on similar projects, past performance, evidence of local office, socio-economic status, and total evaluated price or cost.Id., Tab 3 at 23.The solicitation provided that the first two non-price factors were equal in weight and were more important than the remaining two non-price factors, which were equal to each other in weight.Id.The solicitation stated that all non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost or price; however, where the technical merit of competing proposals became more equal, price/cost would increase in importance in the award decision.Id. at 8, 31.Offerors were to submit separate technical and price proposals.Id. at 5. For the “price proposal,” the solicitation required offerors to submit G&A rates, and stated that these rates alone would be used to evaluate price.Id.