Desbuild Inc.

B-413613.2 Jan 13, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Desbuild Inc., a small business, of Hyattsville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Edifice, LLC, doing business as Edifice Solutions, a small business, of Beltsville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-11P-16-MKC-7003, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for a perimeter security improvement project at the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the awardee's proposal under the solicitation's non-price factors. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. 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:  Desbuild Inc. File:  B-413613.2 Date:  January 13, 2017 Douglas L. Patin, Esq., Aron C. Beezley, Esq., and Lisa A. Markman, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Isaias “Cy” Alba, IV, Esq., Patrick T. Rothwell, Esq., and Stephen J. Kelleher, Esq. Piliero Mazza PLLC, for Edifice Solutions, the intervenor. Claire A. Watkins, Esq., General Services Administration, 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 evaluation of the awardee’s prior experience is denied where it is based upon an unreasonable interpretation of the solicitation. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s key personnel is denied where, although the agency effectively waived a solicitation requirement, the protester does not demonstrate that it was prejudiced by the waiver. 3.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s past performance is dismissed as untimely, where any ambiguity as to the scope of the analysis contemplated was patent. DECISION Desbuild Inc., a small business, of Hyattsville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Edifice, LLC, doing business as Edifice Solutions, a small business, of Beltsville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-11P-16-MKC-7003, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for a perimeter security improvement project at the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal under the solicitation’s non-price factors. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. BACKGROUND On June 3, 2016, GSA issued the solicitation as a set-aside for small businesses.  The solicitation was amended nine times, including an amendment that replaced the entire solicitation with a revised solicitation, referred to hereinafter as the “Revised RFP.”  RFP Amend. 1, June 10, 2016, at 2; Memorandum of Law (MOL), Oct. 18, 2016, at 1-2.  As amended, the solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for general construction services to improve perimeter security at the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia.  Revised RFP at 18.  The solicitation provided for award to the offeror that submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) proposal.  RFP Amend. 3, June 21, 2016, at 2.  In this respect, the solicitation, as amended, provided that the agency would evaluate the lowest-priced offer received; if determined to be technically acceptable, award would be made to that offeror, and no other proposals would be evaluated.  Id. at 2.  If the lowest‑priced proposal was determined to be technically unacceptable, the agency would evaluate the next lowest-priced proposal. Id.  This process would continue until a technically acceptable proposal was identified.  In determining technical acceptability, the solicitation stated that proposals would be evaluated under the following three non-price factors:  experience, key personnel, and past performance.  Revised RFP at 22‑26.  Under the experience and key personnel factors, proposals would be evaluated on a pass/fail basis.  Id.