Cape Environmental Management, Inc.

B-412046.3 Sep 29, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Cape Environmental Management, Inc. (Cape), of Norcross, Georgia, requests that our Office recommend it be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging the award of a contract to MEB General Contractors, Inc. (MEB), of Savannah, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HN-15-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), for construction to replace hydrant fuel systems at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia. We deny the request. We deny the request. 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:  Cape Environmental Management, Inc. File:  B-412046.3 Date:  September 29, 2016 Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., and Rachel K. Plymale, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP; and Carrie F. Apfel, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for the protester. William E. Franczek, Esq., and Patrick Genzler, Esq., Vandeventer Black LLP, for MEB General Contractors, Inc., an intervenor. Connie L. Baran, Esq., Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 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 Request for reimbursement of costs of filing and pursuing a protest is denied where protest was not clearly meritorious, notwithstanding the agency’s decision to take corrective action. DECISION Cape Environmental Management, Inc. (Cape), of Norcross, Georgia, requests that our Office recommend it be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging the award of a contract to MEB General Contractors, Inc. (MEB), of Savannah, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HN-15-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), for construction to replace hydrant fuel systems at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia. We deny the request. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on March 12, 2015, under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract on a best-value basis, considering the following evaluation factors:  past performance, relevant specialized experience, small business participation plan, and price.  RFP[1] at 2, 15.  Relevant specialized experience was stated to be more important than past performance and the small business participation plan was less important than the other two factors.  Id. at 15.  The solicitation stated that all non-cost factors, when combined, were approximately equal in importance to price.  Id. The solicitation advised that the past performance evaluation would consider each offeror’s demonstrated record of performance on recent and relevant projects that involved a similar scope, magnitude of effort, and level of complexity as this solicitation.  Id. at 8.  The solicitation advised that one performance confidence assessment rating (substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown confidence (neutral)) would be assigned for each offeror, with a focus on performance that was relevant to the contract requirements.  Id. at 8, 11.  In this regard, the solicitation stated under paragraph 4.2.2 that “[a]spects of relevant projects include similarity of scope, type of work, complexity, contract type, and the degree of subcontracting or teaming proposed by the [o]fferor.”  Id.  The solicitation further advised that projects would be evaluated using a list of “[p]roject [c]haracteristics” (paragraph 4.2.2.1) that was “not intended to be a comprehensive list,” and similar types of experience areas that are considered “especially relevant” (paragraph 4.2.2.2).[2]  Id.  As relevant here, the solicitation stated that the agency would assign relevancy ratings (e.g., very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, not relevant) to the projects submitted by the offerors “[u]sing the criteria described in paragraph 4.2.2 above.”  Id. at 9-10. For the relevant specialized experience factor, the solicitation stated that the projects considered in the evaluation of the past performance factor that were determined to be at least somewhat relevant would be utilized to “evaluate and rate the recent, relevant specialized experience of the [o]fferor in performing similar projects.”  Id.