Genesis Design and Development, LLC.

B-414254 Feb 28, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Genesis Design and Development, Inc. (Genesis), of Rio Rancho, New Mexico, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposal (RFP) No. P17PS00161, issued by the Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS), for the design and construction of an accessible parking area and accessible ramp at the Alamo Canyon Campground in Ajo, Arizona. Genesis argues the agency unreasonably rejected its proposal for failure to provide three past performance questionnaires completed by previous customers. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Genesis Design and Development, Inc. File:  B-414254 Date:  February 28, 2017 Antonina Holland, Genesis Design and Development, Inc., for the protester. Sherry Kinland Kaswell, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Joshua R. Gillerman, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s rejection of offeror’s proposal is denied where rejection was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. DECISION Genesis Design and Development, Inc. (Genesis), of Rio Rancho, New Mexico, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposal (RFP) No. P17PS00161, issued by the Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS), for the design and construction of an accessible parking area and accessible ramp at the Alamo Canyon Campground in Ajo, Arizona.  Genesis argues the agency unreasonably rejected its proposal for failure to provide three past performance questionnaires completed by previous customers. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on December 8, 2016, and contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for the design and construction of an accessible parking area and ramp at the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument.  RFP at 7, 20.[1]  The solicitation provided for award to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) proposal.  RFP at 22. The solicitation stated that proposals would receive a preliminary review to determine whether they contained sufficient information to allow the government to perform a meaningful evaluation.  RFP at 22.  As is pertinent to the protest, the RFP expressly required offerors to provide three past performance questionnaires completed by previous customers to show that the offeror has successfully completed all tasks associated with the RFP’s requirements.  RFP at 23.  The solicitation further stated that if the preliminary review indicated the proposal lacked sufficient information to allow for a meaningful evaluation, the agency could eliminate the proposal from further consideration.  RFP at 22. The agency received a number of proposals in response to the solicitation.  Contracting Officer’s Statement of Facts (COSF) at 3-4.  Genesis’ proposal was found technically unacceptable because it did not include all of the information and documents required by the RFP.  Id.  Award was made to MedVed Global, Inc. as the firm submitting the LPTA proposal.  Id. at 4. After learning of the agency’s award decision Genesis timely requested a debriefing.  COSF at 4.  The contracting officer advised Genesis that, although it submitted three past performance questionnaires (PPQs), its proposal was deemed unacceptable because the PPQs it submitted were not completed by previous customers.  Id.; Agency Report, exh. 4, Genesis Proposal, at 14-25.  After receiving its debriefing from the agency, Genesis timely filed the instant protest. DISCUSSION Genesis generally challenges the agency’s rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable.  We note at the outset that, in reviewing protests challenging an agency’s evaluation of proposals, our Office does not reevaluate proposals or substitute our judgment for that of the agency; rather, we review the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, as well as applicable statutes and regulations.  ManTech Advanced Sys. Int’l., Inc., B-413717, Dec. 16, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 370 at 3.  In addition, an offeror is responsible for submitting an adequately written proposal and bears the risk that the agency will find its proposal unacceptable where it fails to demonstrate compliance with all of a solicitation’s requirements.  Id. at 5, 7. Genesis concedes that its PPQs were not completed by its previous customers.