Brasfond USA Corp.

B-414081 Feb 06, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Brasfond USA Corp., of Wooster, Ohio, protests the award of a contract to Treviicos South, Inc., of Charlestown, Massachusetts, by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912EP-16-R-0018 for rehabilitation and structural replacement construction services for the Herbert Hoover Dike at Lake Okeechobee, in Martin and Palm Beach Counties, Florida. Brasfond argues that the Corps misevaluated its proposal and made an unreasonable source selection decision. 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:  Brasfond USA Corp. File:  B-414081 Date:  February 6, 2017 Lori Ann Lange, Esq., and Nick R. Hoogstraten, Esq., Peckar & Abramson, PC, for the protester. Scott D. Cessar, Esq., and Matthew J. Whipple, Esq., Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, for Treviicos South, Inc., the intervenor.  Susan E. Symanski, Esq., and Joshua R. Holmes, Esq., Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated protester’s proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation’s evaluation criteria.  DECISION Brasfond USA Corp., of Wooster, Ohio, protests the award of a contract to Treviicos South, Inc., of Charlestown, Massachusetts, by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912EP-16-R-0018 for rehabilitation and structural replacement construction services for the Herbert Hoover Dike at Lake Okeechobee, in Martin and Palm Beach Counties, Florida.  Brasfond argues that the Corps misevaluated its proposal and made an unreasonable source selection decision.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on July 8, 2016, sought proposals to construct cutoff walls in an area identified as “reach 1” of the Herbert Hoover Dike embankment, essentially to construct new concrete structures to fill gaps among certain previously-constructed areas.  Contracting Officer’s Statement at 1.  The RFP stated that construction was to be accomplished using two techniques, referred to as conventional cutoff wall and jet grout cutoff wall.[1]  RFP at 26[2] (Specifications § 00100A).  The Corps was to award a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal was evaluated as the best value, considering four evaluation factors.  RFP amend. 5, at 00100A-1.  The most important non-price factor was technical merit, followed by past performance, and then small business participation.  Id. at 00100A-2.  The three non-price factors, when combined, were slightly more important than the fourth factor, price.  Id. The RFP also identified subfactors under the technical merit factor:  implementation plan/construction schedule (divided into two elements, implementation plan and construction schedule), and demonstrated experience (divided into two elements, one for a particular type of jet-grout cutoff wall construction and the other for a particular type of conventional cutoff wall construction).  RFP amend. 5, at 00100A‑4.  Overall, the technical merit evaluation was to assess whether the proposal: Instill[ed] confidence that the offeror thoroughly understands the requirements and complexities of this project, has the knowledge, expertise, equipment, and experience required to meet or exceed the terms and conditions of these specifications, and the ability to successfully accomplish and complete the project within the required time frame. Id. Offerors were to submit an original proposal and four copies on paper, plus an electronic copy on CD that omitted pricing.  RFP at 1, 20-21; RFP amend. 5, at 00100A-3.  The Corps “reserve[d] the right to make award solely on the paper proposal,” and in the event of conflicts between the paper and electronic copies, the “paper copy proposal shall govern.”  RFP at 21.  With respect to the technical merit factor’s implementation plan element, the RFP directed each offeror to submit detailed descriptions of its methods.  For example, the proposal was required to include a detailed description of the offeror’s jet grout cutoff wall construction methodology which was to include the following:  type of jet grout element proposed, method of production, predrilling procedures (if necessary), verticality measurement, description of safety procedures for work with high pressure systems, waste management and quality control.  RFP amend.