Halbert Construction Company, Inc.

B-413213 Sep 08, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Halbert Construction Company, Inc. (Halbert), of El Cajon, California, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the second phase of the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62473-14-R-0069, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Southwest, for design-build services to be performed at various government installations located in California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. The protester contends that the agency conducted a flawed past performance evaluation and tradeoff analysis. We sustain the protest. We sustain 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:  Halbert Construction Company, Inc. File:  B-413213 Date:  September 8, 2016 David S. Demian, Esq., Christopher R. Sillari, Esq., and Jason R. Thornton, Esq. Finch, Thornton & Baird, LLP, for the protester. Katie Slayton, Esq., and Paul Clay, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Elizabeth Witwer, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s past performance evaluation is sustained where the record reflects that the agency engaged in disparate treatment of offerors’ past performance. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s past performance evaluation is denied where the agency made a reasonable attempt to contact the protester’s references. 3.  Protest challenging the agency’s source selection decision is sustained where the record reflects that the agency erroneously relied upon a non-existent distinction between proposals. DECISION Halbert Construction Company, Inc. (Halbert), of El Cajon, California, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the second phase of the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62473-14-R-0069, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Southwest, for design-build services to be performed at various government installations located in California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico.  The protester contends that the agency conducted a flawed past performance evaluation and tradeoff analysis. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND On August 17, 2015, the Navy issued the RFP as a set-aside for Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small businesses and service‑disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs).  RFP, amend. 0001, at 1.  Offerors were informed that award would be made on a best-value basis using the two phase design‑build procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.3.  RFP at 30.[1]  The RFP stated that the phase one evaluation would result in the selection of the five most highly qualified offerors.[2]  Id.  Those offerors would then be invited to submit phase two proposals.  Id. At the conclusion of phase two, the agency anticipated the award of at least three fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts with a period of performance of a year and four option years.  RFP at 20, 30, 122-23.  Subsequent task orders would be issued on a fixed-price basis.  RFP at 9.  When combined, the estimated maximum dollar value of all contracts was $240 million; the estimated range for the task orders was $3,000 to $9 million.  RFP at 7, 123.  The RFP advised offerors that the Navy intended to evaluate proposals and make awards without discussions.  RFP at 30. In phase one, the RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of three evaluation factors:  (1) technical approach, (2) experience, and (3) past performance.  RFP at 32.  Under the technical approach factor, the agency rated proposals as either acceptable or unacceptable.  RFP at 33.  The experience and past performance factors were weighted equally.  Id. To demonstrate the requisite experience, the RFP required offerors to submit a maximum of five construction projects, as well as a maximum of five design projects.[3]  RFP at 33, 34.  An offeror was permitted to submit the same projects to demonstrate experience in both construction and design.