Crowder Construction Company

B-411928 Oct 08, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Crowder Construction Company, of Apex, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to CDM Constructors, Inc., of Maitland, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HN-13-R-0018, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, for the construction of a dissolved oxygen injection system as part of the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project. Crowder challenges the Army's evaluation of proposals and best-value tradeoff. 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:  Crowder Construction Company File:  B-411928 Date:  October 8, 2015 Stan Barnett, Esq., Smith, Bundy, Bybee & Barnett, P.C., and James J. McCullough, Esq., and Samuel W. Jack, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP, for the protester. Richard B. O’Keeffe, Jr., Esq., and Brian G. Walsh, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for CDM Constructors, Inc., the intervenor. John E. Ballard, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s source selection decision selecting a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal is denied where the agency’s best-value tradeoff was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Crowder Construction Company, of Apex, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to CDM Constructors, Inc., of Maitland, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HN-13-R-0018, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, for the construction of a dissolved oxygen injection system as part of the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project.  Crowder challenges the Army’s evaluation of proposals and best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest.[1] BACKGROUND The Savannah Harbor Expansion Project consists primarily of deepening the existing deep-draft navigation channel in Savannah Harbor from -42 feet to -47 feet.  Agency Report (AR) at 1 n.1.  The RFP, which was issued on October 1, 2014, is for a key mitigation feature involving the construction of a dissolved oxygen injection system utilizing Speece cones.  According to the Army, Speece cones are devices that pump water from the river, mix it with oxygen pulled from ambient air, and return the oxygen/water mixture back into the river, where it mixes with the water column and is distributed by tidal currents.  Id.  The system is intended to mitigate any decrease in dissolved oxygen levels in the Savannah River that may occur as a result of harbor deepening activities.  Id.  The contractor will be responsible for construction and related services at two locations located in Georgia, including system installation, on‑site oxygen generation, intake/discharge piping systems, pumps, electrical service, concrete pads, access roads, instrumentation, remote monitoring, security, and perimeter fencing.  RFP at 16.[2] The RFP contemplated the award of a single fixed-price contract with a period of performance not to exceed 820 calendar days following the Army’s issuance of a notice to proceed.  Id. at 1; RFP amend. No. 9, at 2.  Award was to be made on a best-value basis, considering price and four non-price factors, in descending order of importance:  (1) past performance; (2) experience; (3) summary schedule; and (4) small business participation.  RFP at 17, 30-31.  The four non-price factors, when combined, were to be significantly more important than price.  Id. at 30. Regarding past performance, the RFP instructed offerors to submit no more than five total project examples.  Id. at 21.  The Army was to evaluate an offeror’s demonstrated record of past performance on recent and relevant projects that involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities as required by the RFP.  Id.