AMEL Technologies, Inc.

Case: B-412611 Agency: Department of Defense : Department of the Navy : Naval Facilities Engineering Command Protester: AMEL Technologies, Inc. Date: 2016-04-01 Denied
View full decision with AI analysis on ProtestIntel →
B-412611 Apr 01, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AMEL Technologies, Inc., of Honolulu, Hawaii, protests the agency's evaluation of its qualification statement under synopsis No. N6274215R0002, issued by the Department of the Navy for architect-engineering (A/E) services. AMEL, which is an economically disadvantaged women-owned small business (EDWOSB), challenges the evaluation of its experience and technical competence, and alleges that the evaluation reflected gender bias against women architects and engineers. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  AMEL Technologies, Inc. File:  B-412611 Date:  April 1, 2016 Melek Yalcintas, Ph.D., AMEL Technologies, Inc., for the protester. N. Harry Herrick, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In a procurement for architect-engineering services, protest of the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s qualification statement is denied where the record demonstrates that the agency reasonably evaluated the protester’s experience and technical competence consistent with the solicitation’s selection criteria and the record does not support the protester’s allegation of gender bias. DECISION AMEL Technologies, Inc., of Honolulu, Hawaii, protests the agency’s evaluation of its qualification statement under synopsis No. N6274215R0002, issued by the Department of the Navy for architect-engineering (A/E) services.  AMEL, which is an economically disadvantaged women-owned small business (EDWOSB), challenges the evaluation of its experience and technical competence, and alleges that the evaluation reflected gender bias against women architects and engineers. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The procurement, which was set aside for small businesses, was conducted pursuant to the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 1102-1104, and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.6 for A/E services for geotechnical projects in various locations under the area of responsibility (AOR) of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific (NAVFAC Pacific).  Synopsis at 1, 4, 6.  The synopsis provided for the award of an indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity contract for a base year and two option years, and stated that fixed‑price task orders would be issued for projects on an as‑needed basis.  Id. at 4; amend. 1 at 1. Qualified firms were invited to submit Standard Form (SF) 330, A/E Qualifications Statements, which would be evaluated based on seven selection criteria, in descending order of importance:  (1) professional qualifications; (2) specialized recent experience and technical competence of the prime firm and key personnel (hereinafter, experience and technical competence); (3) past performance; (4) capacity to accomplish the work in the required time; (5) quality control program; (6) location of the firm; and (7) volume of work previously awarded to the firm by the Department of Defense.  Synopsis at 1-6; see FAR § 53.301-330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications.  The synopsis included detailed submission requirements for each selection criterion, and stated that the A/E firm must demonstrate its qualifications for each criterion for all services.  Synopsis at 1-6.  Offerors were informed that the most highly‑qualified firm would be selected for award.  Id. With regard to the experience and technical competence selection criterion (no. 2), relevant here, firms were to submit a maximum of five relevant projects completed within the past five years, and provide detailed descriptions of the A/E support services rendered for each project.  Id. at 2.  A/E firms and their proposed key personnel were to demonstrate specialized experience and technical competence conducting geotechnical investigations and consulting work related to earthwork, pavement, and foundation design, in support of a number of multi‑discipline A/E services (discussed below) for projects in Hawaii, Guam, and tropical areas within the NAVFAC Pacific AOR.  Id.

Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...