Construction Services Group, Inc.

B-412343.3 Feb 27, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Construction Services Group, Inc. (CSG), of Charleston, South Carolina, protests the award of a contract to Atkinson/Trend Joint Venture (A/T), of Fayetteville, North Carolina, by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HN-14-R-0026, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) set-aside for general construction services. CSG alleges that the agency's evaluation of proposals was inconsistent with the RFP and unreasonable, and that the agency's award decision was flawed. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Construction Services Group, Inc. File:  B-412343.3 Date:  February 27, 2017 Eric B. Laquiere, Esq., Laquiere Law Firm, LLC, for the protester. Alan W. Bardell, Esq., Robert L. Magrini, Esq., Hayes Magrini & Gatewood, for Atkinson/Trend Joint Venture, the intervenor. Connie L. Baran, Esq., John E. Ballard, Esq., Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Eric M. Ransom, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of the agency’s technical evaluation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION Construction Services Group, Inc. (CSG), of Charleston, South Carolina, protests the award of a contract to Atkinson/Trend Joint Venture (A/T), of Fayetteville, North Carolina, by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HN-14-R-0026, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) set-aside for general construction services.  CSG alleges that the agency’s evaluation of proposals was inconsistent with the RFP and unreasonable, and that the agency’s award decision was flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the RFP on October 31, 2014, as a two-phase procurement for design-build and design-bid-build general construction services, primarily for projects at lakes and dams locations in the Corps of Engineers’ Savannah District area of responsibility.  The RFP contemplated the award of single task order contract for a 2-year base period and three 1-year option periods, with a maximum total value of $45 million.  The RFP established that the award would be made on a best-value basis considering three technical factors and price.  The technical factors consisted of past performance, design approach, and technical approach.  The RFP provided that among the technical factors, past performance and technical approach were of equal importance, and were more important than design approach.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, RFP at 55.  Price was less important than the technical factors.  Id. As relevant here, the technical approach factor did not require a substantial technical narrative.  Rather, the technical approach factor required submission of a general pricing schedule and a sample task order pricing response concerning the removal and replacement of switchyard aggregate material at the Richard B. Russel Dam power plant, in Elbert County, Georgia.  The pricing response involved submission of “a quantitative proposal for the sample project utilizing R.S. Means Cost Works,” requiring the correct application of R.S. Means pricing coefficients to the sample task construction services.  Id. at 54.  The technical approach factor evaluation criteria provided that: Offerors will be evaluated on their technical approach in determining their price proposal utilizing the applicable Construction Specification Institute (CSI) numbers and appropriate quantities. Offerors will also be evaluated on how well they understand the required application of their proposed coefficient and mark-ups. Id.  Also as relevant, the RFP evaluation criteria addressed exceptions to the requirements, and provided generally that “[e]xceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation . . . may result in a determination to reject a proposal.”  Id.