Cooperativa Muratori & Cementisti, C.M.C. di Ravenna Societa Cooperativa

B-413308 Sep 30, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Cooperativa Muratori & Cementisti, C.M.C. di Ravenna Società Cooperativa (CMC) of Ravenna, Italy, protests the award of a contract to M+W LOTUS ITALY S.C.A.R.L. (LOTUS), of Agrate Brianza, Italy, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N33191-16-R-1007, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for construction of a new satellite communications (SATCOM) facility. CMC challenges the agency's evaluation of CMC's experience. 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:  Cooperativa Muratori & Cementisti, C.M.C. di Ravenna Società Cooperativa File:  B-413308 Date:  September 30, 2016 Enrico Raengo, Esq., and Cristina Bergamo, Esq., Studio Raengo, for the protester. Kenneth Jerome Rich, Sr., Esq., and Patricia J. Battin, Esq, Department of the Navy, for the agency. Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of protester’s experience is denied where the record establishes that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria. DECISION Cooperativa Muratori & Cementisti, C.M.C. di Ravenna Società Cooperativa (CMC) of Ravenna, Italy, protests the award of a contract to M+W LOTUS ITALY S.C.A.R.L. (LOTUS), of Agrate Brianza, Italy, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N33191-16-R-1007, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for construction of a new satellite communications (SATCOM) facility.  CMC challenges the agency’s evaluation of CMC’s experience. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Navy issued the solicitation on January 11, 2016, seeking proposals for award of a fixed‑price, design-bid-build contract to construct a new SATCOM facility and relay pads at U.S. Naval Air Station Sigonella, Italy.  RFP at 1, 11.  The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated under five evaluation factors (experience, safety, schedule, past performance, and price) and that award would be made on a lowest‑price, technically acceptable basis.  Id. at 11.  Offerors were advised that the non‑price factors would be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable (i.e., pass/fail) basis and that a proposal found unacceptable under any of these factors would be unacceptable overall.  Id. at 11. Under the experience evaluation factor, offerors were to submit three to five construction projects completed within 7 years of the RFP issue date, which were similar in size, scope, and complexity to the requirement and best demonstrated the offeror’s relevant experience.  Id. at 13.  A relevant project was defined as construction of a new facility of at least 800 square meters (8,611 square feet) with an initial contract value of at least $6,000,000.  Id.  Offerors were to clearly describe the scope and relevance of each project using a project data sheet included with the RFP.  Id.; attach. A, Constr. & Design Experience Project Data Sheet.  The RFP stated that the agency would evaluate an offeror’s depth of demonstrated experience performing relevant construction projects and assess the offeror’s capability to successfully meet the solicitation requirements.  Id. The Navy received proposals from seven offerors, including CMC and LOTUS.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, Bus. Clearance Mem. (BCM), at 8‑10.  Proposals were evaluated by a source selection evaluation board (SSEB), which included a technical evaluation team (TET) that evaluated proposals under the non‑price factors.  See id. at 9, 15; AR, Tab 10, Source Selection Plan, at 9‑14.  The TET prepared a detailed report of its evaluation findings and assessments of strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in proposals.  AR, Tab 3, TET Report, at 1‑37. Four proposals, including CMC’s proposal, were evaluated as unacceptable under the experience factor and, therefore, unacceptable overall.  AR, Tab 5, BCM, at 9‑10, 15.  In regards to CMC, three of its experience projects (Nos. 2, 3, and 5) were evaluated as not relevant to the requirement.  AR, Tab 3, TET Report, at 13‑15.  With respect to CMC’s project No. 2, the TET found that it involved repair and renovation of an existing building, to include installing a new communication system, new internal walls, and replacing windows, which was not similar in scope to construction of a new facility as required by the RFP.  Id. at 14.  With respect to project No. 3, the TET found that the project was completed more than 7 years before the RFP was issued, contrary to the terms of the solicitation.  Id. at 13‑15.  With respect to project No.