Reid Planning, Inc.

B-412942 Jul 08, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Reid Planning, Inc., a small business located in San Diego, California, protests the selection of The Onyx-Urban Collaborative Joint Venture, LLC, a small business located in Alexandria, Virginia, for price negotiations in connection with synopsis No. N62473-16-R-1846, which was issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest (NAVFAC SW) for architect-engineer (A/E) services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its qualification statement. 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:  Reid Planning, Inc. File:  B-412942 Date:  July 8, 2016 David A. Rose, Esq., Law Offices of Moser Rose, LLP, for the protester. Katie Slayton, Esq., and Paul Clay, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Nora K. Adkins, Esq., and Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In a procurement for architect-engineer services, protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s qualification statement is denied where the record demonstrates that the agency reasonably evaluated the protester’s statement consistent with the solicitation’s selection criteria. DECISION Reid Planning, Inc., a small business located in San Diego, California, protests the selection of The Onyx-Urban Collaborative Joint Venture, LLC, a small business located in Alexandria, Virginia, for price negotiations in connection with synopsis No. N62473-16-R-1846, which was issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest (NAVFAC SW) for architect-engineer (A/E) services. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its qualification statement. We deny the protest. Generally, A/E procurements, such as the one at issue in this protest, are conducted pursuant to special procedures established by the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 1102-1104, as implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.6. Under the competitive procedures established by FAR subpart 36.6, the agency does not issue a solicitation, and competing firms do not submit proposals or quotations. FAR §§ 36.601-2, 36.603.Rather, the agency publishes a synopsis inviting capable firms to submit a Standard Form (SF) 330, “Architect-Engineer Qualifications” statement. FAR § 36.603(b). The agency then convenes an A/E evaluation board to review the submitted A/E qualifications statements, and holds discussions with at least three of the “most highly qualified” firms.FAR §§ 36.602-2, 36.602‑3. The board ranks the firms, and prepares a selection report for the source selection authority (SSA) recommending, in order of preference, at least three firms considered to be the most highly qualified to perform the required services. FAR § 36.602-3. In turn, the SSA makes a final selection, which consists of the SSA’s listing, in order of preference, of the most highly qualified firms. FAR § 36.602-4. On October 23, 2015­­­­, the Navy publicly announced through the Federal Business Opportunities website the current A/E synopsis as a total small business set-aside for facility planning services at various Navy and Marine Corps facilities and other government installations located in the NAVFAC SW area of responsibility:California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.[1]Synopsis at 1.The preponderance of the facility planning work was expected to be performed in southern California and encompassed primary A/E services (project planning documents); secondary A/E services (sustainability master planning and geospatial information and service); and support A/E services (other services).Id. at 1-2. The synopsis provided for the award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity contract for a base year and four option years. Id.The synopsis invited qualified firms to submit SF 330s, A/E qualifications statements, which would be evaluated based on eight selection criteria:(1) professional qualifications; (2) specialized experience and technical competence; (3) capacity; (4) past performance; (5) location and knowledge of the locality; (6) sustainable design; (7) quality control; and (8) volume of work. Id. at 2.The synopsis included detailed submission requirements for each selection criterion, and stated that the A/E firm must demonstrate its qualifications for each criterion. Id. at 3-7.Interested firms were informed that the most highly qualified firm would be selected for price negotiations. Id. at 2. The Navy received multiple SF 330s in response to the synopsis. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, Board’s Slate Decision, at 1.