Atherton Construction, Inc.

B-412846.2 Oct 18, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Atherton Construction, Inc., of Henderson, Nevada, protests the award of a contract to Hal Hays Construction, LLC, of Riverside, California, by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91238-15-R-0063 for construction services. Atherton argues that the agency improperly evaluated the awardee's proposal under two of the three non-price factors. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Atherton Construction, Inc. File:  B-412846.2 Date:  October 18, 2016 Mark G. Jackson, Esq. and Stowell B. Holcomb, Esq., Jackson Rosenfield LLP, for the protester. Annette B. Kuz, Esq., Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s proposal under the experience/capability and past performance factors is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. DECISION Atherton Construction, Inc., of Henderson, Nevada, protests the award of a contract to Hal Hays Construction, LLC, of Riverside, California, by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91238-15-R-0063 for construction services.  Atherton argues that the agency improperly evaluated the awardee’s proposal under two of the three non-price factors. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on July 31, 2015, sought proposals to construct a temporary lodging facility at Beale Air Force Base, located in Yuba County, California.  RFP at 1.  Award of one fixed-price contract was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, considering price and the following non-price factors, in descending order of importance:  experience and capability, technical approach, and past performance.  Id. at 21-22.  The non-price factors, when combined, were to be approximately equal to price.  Id. at 21. The experience and capability factor included two subfactors:  prime contractor/key subcontractor example projects demonstrating experience and capability (experience and capability subfactor), and prime contractor/key subcontractor corporate resumes.  Id. at 36.  The past performance factor included two subfactors:  prime contractor/key subcontractor example projects past performance, and key subcontractor authorization letters.  Id. The experience and capability factor was to be evaluated and assigned one of the following technical/risk ratings:  outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable.  Id. at 24.  As relevant here, outstanding was defined as “proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements.  Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.  Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.”  Id.  A rating of acceptable was defined as “proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.  Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.  Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.”  Id. Offerors were to submit example projects and resumes for evaluation.  For example projects, the evaluation factor states: The more similarities an example project has with the prospective contract, the greater the degree of relevancy.  Relevant is defined as projects similar in project type/scope, physical size, complexity; dollar value, contract type and degree of subcontract/teaming.  The more relevant the experience is, the more favorable the evaluation rating. Id. at 38.  The experience and capability factor also states that, “[t]he Government is especially interested in relevant experience in projects of comparable size, scope and complexity” and provides the following four “key elements”:  (1) construction apartments, multi-family housing or lodging, (2) facilities similar in size, scope and complexity, (3) maintaining pedestrian and vehicular circulation for adjacent occupied buildings, and (4) sequencing/phasing.  Id. Under the experience and capability subfactor offerors were required to submit example projects for two capability areas.  The first capability area required, “[a]t least two with no more than three example projects demonstrating the offeror’s project management experience and capability as a prime contractor on a project of similar size, scope and complexity.”  Id.