GM-Bulltrack, JV

B-414591 Jul 12, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Defense Base Services, Inc. (DBSI), of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the Department of the Navy's exclusion of its proposal from phase 2 of a two-phase design-build competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40192-16-R-2800, for construction projects on Guam. DBSI argues that the agency improperly evaluated its phase 1 proposal and unreasonably eliminated it from the competition. 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:  Defense Base Services, Inc. File:  B-414591 Date:  July 12, 2017 Lisa A. Markman, Esq., Douglas L. Patin, Esq., and Emily A. Unnasch, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. John C. Masterson, Esq., and Robert F. Simpson, Department of the Navy, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In a procurement conducted under two-phase design-build selection procedures, protest of an agency's evaluation of protester's phase 1 proposal, and the agency's decision to exclude the protester from phase 2, is denied where the agency's evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. DECISION Defense Base Services, Inc. (DBSI), of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the Department of the Navy's exclusion of its proposal from phase 2 of a two-phase design-build competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40192-16-R-2800, for construction projects on Guam.  DBSI argues that the agency improperly evaluated its phase 1 proposal and unreasonably eliminated it from the competition. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on March 29, 2016, under the two-phase design-build provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.3 and contemplated the award of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity multiple-award task order contracts for design-build and construction projects at various federal or military facilities and installations on Guam.  The RFP, which was set aside for small businesses, stated that the agency intended to award five contracts for a base year and four 1-year option periods.  RFP at 3-7.  The maximum dollar value, including the base period and all options, for all contracts combined was $240,000,000.  RFP at 6.  The RFP also provided that the price range for task orders to be issued under the contract is $1,000,000 to $20,000,000.  Id. Relevant to this protest, under phase 1, the agency was to evaluate proposals using the following four factors:  technical approach, experience, past performance, and safety.  RFP at 24.  The technical approach evaluation factor was to be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, while the experience and safety evaluation factors would be evaluated using adjectival ratings (outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable), and the past performance evaluation factor would be evaluated using confidence levels (substantial, satisfactory, limited, no, or unknown).  Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, Phase One Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report, at 3-4.  The solicitation stated that, in phase 1, the government intends to select the most highly qualified offerors to submit proposals for phase 2 without conducting discussions, except for clarifications as described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 15.306(a).  Id. at 15, 22.  The RFP also provided that the Navy "may waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received."  Id. at 15. Regarding technical approach, offerors were to provide a narrative describing the composition and management of the firms proposed as the design-build team.[1]  Id. at 25.  This narrative was to describe the primary construction firms and primary design firms for this contract and rationale for proposing this arrangement, and offerors were to "[s]pecifically identify one (1) Lead Design Firm for this contract."  RFP, amend. 1, at 2 (emphasis in original).  In addition to the narrative, the RFP stated that Offerors were required to submit a fully executed true and authentic copy of the legally binding agreement, such as a joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, approved mentor protégé agreement (MPA), or letter of commitment for each member of the Offeror's team identified above (e.g.