AMEL Technologies, Inc.

B-412587.2 Jun 20, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AMEL Technologies, Inc., an economically disadvantaged woman-owned small business concern, of Honolulu, Hawaii, protests the evaluation of its qualification statement under solicitation No. N62478-15-R-5023, which was issued by the Department of the Navy, for architect-engineer services (A/E). AMEL argues that the agency's evaluation of its qualification statement was flawed. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  AMEL Technologies, Inc. File:  B-412587.2 Date:  June 20, 2016 Melek Yalcintas, Ph.D., for the protester. Andrea S. Maglasang-Miller, Esq., and Ron Ashlock, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of agency’s evaluation of architect-engineer qualification statements, as part of a corrective action, is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably performed its evaluation in accordance with the stated selection criteria. DECISION AMEL Technologies, Inc., an economically disadvantaged woman-owned small business concern, of Honolulu, Hawaii, protests the evaluation of its qualification statement under solicitation No. N62478-15-R-5023, which was issued by the Department of the Navy, for architect-engineer services (A/E).  AMEL argues that the agency’s evaluation of its qualification statement was flawed.  We deny the protest.[1] BACKGROUND This procurement was conducted pursuant to the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 1101‑1104 and its implementing regulations, Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 36.6 for A/E services.  Issued on May 4, 2015, as a total small business set‑aside, the solicitation invited qualified firms to submit a completed Standard Form 330, A/E Qualifications Statement.  The solicitation contemplated the award of an indefinite-quantity A/E contract for a base year with four option years to provide design and engineering services for various design‑build mechanical and fire protection projects.  Solicitation at 1.  The solicitation indicated that the majority of these projects will be associated with the mechanical discipline and may involve new construction, alteration, repair, and installation of mechanical and fire protection facilities and systems.  Id. According to the solicitation, qualification statements would be evaluated based on eight selection criteria listed in order of importance:  (1) professional qualifications of firm and staff; (2) specialized recent experience and technical competence of firm or particular staff members; (3) past performance; (4) capacity to accomplish the work in the required time; (5) knowledge and demonstrated experience; (6) firm’s quality control program experience; (7) location of the firm in the general geographical area; and (8) volume of work previously awarded to the firm.  Id. at 1-3.  The solicitation included detailed submission requirements for each selection criterion, and required A/E firms to demonstrate their qualifications for each criterion for all services.  As is relevant here, under the most important selection criterion, professional qualifications of firm and staff, the solicitation established that the agency would assess a firm’s qualifications to prepare design build contract documents including, “mechanical air-conditioning systems and controls, compressed air systems, industrial exhaust and ventilation systems, water heating systems, plumbing systems.”  Id.