Mortenson -Alberici Joint Venture

B-413714 Dec 09, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights M.A. Mortenson Company, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, protests the issuance of a task order to GRAM JV--a joint venture of John C. Grimberg, Co., of Rockville, Maryland, and AMATEA, LLC, of Leesburg, Virginia--under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912DY-15-D-00XX, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the repair and renovation of building 247 at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated Mortenson's proposal and that discussions were not meaningful. 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:  M.A. Mortenson Company File:  B-413714 Date:  December 9, 2016 Peter J. Eyre, Esq., Robert J. Sneckenberg, Esq., and Charles Baek, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Shelly L. Ewald, Esq., Brent N. Mackay, Esq., and Eric M. Liberman, Esq., Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP, for GRAM JV, the intervenor. Steven W. Feldman, Esq., Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s technical proposal is denied where the record demonstrates that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. 2.  Protest challenging agency’s conduct of discussions is denied where the record provides no basis on which to conclude that discussions were not meaningful. DECISION M.A. Mortenson Company, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, protests the issuance of a task order to GRAM JV--a joint venture of John C. Grimberg, Co., of Rockville, Maryland, and AMATEA, LLC, of Leesburg, Virginia--under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912DY-15-D-00XX, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the repair and renovation of building 247 at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.  The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated Mortenson’s proposal and that discussions were not meaningful. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP sought proposals for the issuance of a fixed-price task order for the renovation of an occupied building to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the government, considering the following four evaluation factors:  technical/management approach (including the technical approach, soundness of approach, schedule (execution) management, and management area elements); past performance; price and price related factors; and small business utilization.[1]  RFP at 3.  As relevant to this protest, award would not be made to an offeror whose proposal contains a material deviation from the RFP requirements.  Id. at 5.  Under the technical/management approach factor, offerors were to demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and goals of the Design Requirements Document (DRD), which was an attachment to the solicitation.  AR, Encl. 3, Facilities Repair and Renovation (FRR) Section 863 Proposal Format, at 1.  The requirements contained in the DRD were “minimums”; the agency advised offerors that “[i]nnovative, creative, and life-cycle cost-effective solutions which meet or exceed these requirements are encouraged.”[2]  AR, Encl. 4, DRD, at 8.  According to the DRD, the building would remain occupied while undergoing renovation, and the agency required that offerors’ work plans include “phasing” the work and rotating groups of personnel through an available “swing space.”[3]  Id. at 12 (“Phasing will be required to implement building-wide repairs in this project”).  Specifically, the DRD stated: The implementation of Building-Wide Repairs (Section 3.0) requires the project to be accomplished in phases.  The facility must remain operational for the existing tenants during the repair/alteration phase.  Tenants shall be relocated within Building 247 as needed to accommodate the repair/alteration schedule.  Level Three and a portion of the Level One are currently vacant and will be utilized during the swing space phase.  Id. at 42.  One of several specific tasks identified in the scope of work was for the contractor to “[f]acilitate temporary relocations of [Army Inspector General School] and [Army Force Management School] staff and faculty, and classroom areas into swing space.”  Id. at 93.  In addition, the solicitation required that proposals include resumes detailing the background and experience of the following key personnel:  project manager, contract administrator, quality control manager, design manager, and safety manager.  AR, Encl.