Global Engineering & Construction LLC

B-413079 Aug 10, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Global Engineering & Construction, LLC, a small business of Renton, Washington, protests its nonselection for award pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W9127S-15-R-6007, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for construction services throughout the United States. The protester argues its proposal was unreasonably evaluated. 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:  Global Engineering & Construction LLC File:  B-413079 Date:  August 10, 2016 Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., and Kristin E. Zachman, Esq., Bailey & Bailey, P.C., for the protester. S. DeAnn Lehigh, Esq., Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Young S. Lee, 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 is denied where record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.  DECISION Global Engineering & Construction, LLC, a small business of Renton, Washington, protests its nonselection for award pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W9127S‑15‑R‑6007, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for construction services throughout the United States.[1]  The protester argues its proposal was unreasonably evaluated.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 26, 2015, the agency issued the RFP as a total small business set-aside, seeking proposals for construction services in support of the U.S. Army Medical Command’s medical sustainment, restoration, and modernization mission.  RFP at 1.  The solicitation contemplated the award of multiple, fixed-price, indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) task order contracts, each for a 3-year period of performance.  Id. The agency used a two-phase solicitation and selection process as provided for by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.3.  Id. at 4.  Awards were to be made on a best-value basis, considering price and the following six non-price factors:  (1) technical/management approach; (2) specialized experience; (3) past performance; (4) technical design; (5) key personnel qualifications and competency for seed project; and (6) schedule.[2]  RFP amend. 8, at 7-8.  For phase one of the solicitation, offerors were required to submit proposals addressing the first three non‑price factors.  RFP amend. 1, at 5.  During this phase of the competition, proposals were evaluated to determine which offerors would be invited to submit proposals in response to the next phase of the solicitation.[3]  RFP at 27.  For phase two, offerors had to identify how they would address the solicitation’s statement of work (SOW), which contemplated as a seed project the renovation of an existing health clinic located at Fort McNair, building 58, in Washington D.C.  Id. at 180; RFP amend. 8, at 7.  Proposals submitted in response to phase two were to be evaluated under the RFP’s remaining three evaluation factors, as well as proposed prices for the seed project.  RFP amend. 8, at 7, 14.  The RFP provided that the non-price evaluation factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.[4]  Id. at 8.  With regard to the technical design factor, the RFP required offerors to submit conceptual level presentation drawings, technical approach narratives, and information related to material and system quality.  Id. at 9.  Additionally, proposals were to demonstrate an understanding of the project objective as described in the solicitation’s SOW and attachments, while also describing how the offeror would achieve a technical solution.  Id.  Of relevance to this protest, a project description, which was among the attachments to the RFP, informed offerors, in part, that “[t]he existing capacity of the chilled water and heating water systems should be determined such that the load from the addition of building 58 does not overload the existing systems.”  RFP, Revised Project Description, at 10.  The evaluation of the technical design factor was to be based on an assessment of over 19 different criteria to determine whether an offeror understood and demonstrated the ability to meet or exceed the solicitation’s requirements.  RFP amend.