ASFA International Construction Industry and Trade, Inc.

B-412337.2 Jan 21, 2016 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ASFA Uluslararasi Insaat Sanayi Ve Ticaret, doing business as ASFA International Construction Industry and Trade Inc. (ASFA), of Adana, Turkey, protests the award of a contract to Kirnak Ins. San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti, also of Adana, Turkey, by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA5685-15-R-0006, for construction of an explosive ordinance facility at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey. The protester challenges the agency's finding that its proposal was technically unacceptable and argues that the agency should have requested clarification regarding any missing information. 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:  ASFA International Construction Industry and Trade, Inc. File:  B-412337.2 Date:  January 21, 2016 Mehmet Soner, ASFA International Construction Industry and Trade, Inc., for the protester. James H. Roberts, Esq., Van Scoyoc Kelly & Roberts PLLC, for the intervenor. Joel B. Lofgren, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Stephanie B. Magnell, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s rejection of a proposal as technically unacceptable for failing to respond to certain portions of the solicitation is denied where the protester failed to demonstrate that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable or inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION ASFA Uluslararasi Insaat Sanayi Ve Ticaret, doing business as ASFA International Construction Industry and Trade Inc. (ASFA), of Adana, Turkey, protests the award of a contract to Kirnak Ins. San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti, also of Adana, Turkey, by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA5685-15-R-0006, for construction of an explosive ordinance facility at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey.  The protester challenges the agency’s finding that its proposal was technically unacceptable and argues that the agency should have requested clarification regarding any missing information. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The procurement was conducted under the negotiated procurement procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15.  The solicitation stated that the Air Force would make award to the responsible offeror that submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal.  RFP at 30.  Offerors were evaluated under price and two non-price factors:  proposal documentation and technical capability.  Id. at 30.  The technical capability factor consisted of four subfactors:  (1) quality control plan; (2) technical capabilities; (3) progress schedule; and safety plan and safety equipment list.  Id. at 24-25.  As relevant to the protest, the RFP required offerors to identify a key person to serve as a LEED[1] commissioning authority “to meet the submittal and reporting requirements of the LEED EA [energy and atmosphere] Prerequisite Requirement for Fundamental Commissioning.”  RFP, Specifications § 1.4.2.1.  The RFP specified that the individual proposed as the commissioning authority “must be certified as a commissioning professional by with the Association of Energy Engineers (AEE), the Building Commissioning Association (BCA), the National Environmental Balancing Bureau (NEBB), or the University of Wisconsin - Madison (UWM).”  Id. at § 1.4.2.2.  The solicitation required offerors “to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors.”  RFP at 23.  The RFP further stated that “[f]ailure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.”  Id.  Offerors were informed that “[p]roposals must be rated ‘Acceptable’ for all technical subfactors in order to be determined technically ‘Acceptable.’”  Id. at 31.  Thus, if a proposal were found to be unacceptable for even one technical subfactor, it was ineligible for award. The Air Force received nine timely proposals.  Contracting Officer’s Statement of Facts at 1.  The agency ranked the proposals from lowest- to highest-priced and evaluated their technical acceptability, starting with the lowest in price.  AR, Tab 13, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), at 1.  The agency found the lowest-priced proposal to be technically unacceptable and proceeded to evaluate ASFA’s proposal, which was the second lowest-priced.  Id.