Rocky Mountain Excavating, Inc.

B-412879 Jun 22, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Rocky Mountain Excavating, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Castle Rock, Colorado, protests the award of six contracts, under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA259-15-R-0018, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for repair and construction services. Rocky Mountain contends that the VA's evaluation of its proposal and the agency's award decision were unreasonable. 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:  Rocky Mountain Excavating, Inc. File:  B-412879 Date:  June 22, 2016 Ryan J. Klein, Esq., and Durward E. Timmons, Esq., Sherman & Howard L.L.C., for the protester. David G. Fagan, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Young S. Lee, Esq., Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the evaluation of protester’s technical proposal and best-value decision is denied where record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.  DECISION Rocky Mountain Excavating, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Castle Rock, Colorado, protests the award of six contracts,[1] under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA259-15-R-0018, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for repair and construction services.  Rocky Mountain contends that the VA’s evaluation of its proposal and the agency’s award decision were unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 27, 2015, the agency issued the RFP as a total SDVOSB set-aside, seeking proposals for maintenance, repair, and construction services at six different VA stations.  RFP at 1, 7.  The solicitation was conducted pursuant to the negotiated procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15 and contemplated the award of up to six, fixed-price, indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) multiple award task order contracts, with each contract having a 12‑month base period and four 12-month option periods.  RFP at 1, 6-9.  The RFP provided that awards would be made on a best-value basis, considering price and the following three non-price factors:  (1) medical experience (construction), (2) general experience, and (3) past performance.[2]  Id. at 17-18.  Pursuant to the solicitation, all non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price and were listed in descending order of importance.  Id. at 17.  As relevant to this protest, the medical experience (construction) factor contained the following two equally-weighted subfactors:  (1) medical facilities construction experience and (2) infection control plan.  Id. at 17-18.  With regard to the infection control plan subfactor, the solicitation instructed offerors to document and demonstrate that the firm had experience with infection control risk assessments, corresponding mitigation measures, and experience with interim life safety measures.  Id. at 19.  In addition, the RFP required offerors to submit:  (1) a copy of their infection risk management policy; (2) copies of specific infection control risk assessments and resulting infection control risk management plans for at least one other project of similar size and scope in a hospital environment; (3) copies of 10 days of daily reports showing that infection risk management items were inspected periodically, that non-compliance incidents were documented, and that measures were taken to mitigate any non‑compliances; and (4) copies of 10 days of interim life safety measure assessments showing that these items were inspected periodically, that non‑compliance items were documented, and what measures were taken to mitigate any non‑compliance items.  Id.  The solicitation provided that for the infection control plan subfactor, offerors would be evaluated based on their “level of understanding of Infectious Control and the company’s infection risk management practices.”  Id. The agency received 24 proposals by the solicitation’s February 15, 2016, closing date.[3]  Contracting Officer (CO) Statement at 3; Agency Report (AR), Tab 4 Supp., Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) Report, at 2.  The agency’s TEB evaluated the proposals, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and assigned ratings based on the solicitation’s adjectival rating scheme.  AR, Tab 4 Supp., TEB Report, at 10-50.  Rocky Mountain’s and the awardees’ proposals were evaluated as follows:  Offeror Medical Experience (Construction) General Experience Past Performance Evaluated Price RHI, LLC Good Satisfactory Good $1,341,346 MSC Design Build LLC Good ...