Diversified Construction

B-415312 Nov 21, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Diversified Construction, of Doha, Qatar, protests the award of a contract to Rahman Group, Inc., of Doha, Qatar, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA5702-17-R-0011 issued by the Department of the Air Force for the renovation of building 5492, Desert Depot Warehouse, at Al-Udeid Air Base, Qatar. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably concluded that its proposal was technically unacceptable, and made an improper award to a higher-priced offer. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Diversified Construction File:  B-415312 Date:  November 21, 2017 Paul Adams, for the protester. Colonel C. Taylor Smith, Christopher M. Judge, Esq., and Major Jeffrey A. Davis, Jr., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably evaluated protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable on the basis that the proposal did not adequately address the stated requirements. DECISION Diversified Construction, of Doha, Qatar, protests the award of a contract to Rahman Group, Inc., of Doha, Qatar, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA5702-17-R-0011 issued by the Department of the Air Force for the renovation of building 5492, Desert Depot Warehouse, at Al-Udeid Air Base, Qatar.  The protester contends that the agency unreasonably concluded that its proposal was technically unacceptable, and made an improper award to a higher-priced offer. We deny the protest.[1] BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on July 15, 2017, contemplated the award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract using Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 13 (simplified acquisition procedures) and 15 (contracting by negotiation) to the lowest-priced, technically-acceptable offer.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP, at 53, 63.  The RFP specifically advised:  “Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award….  [T]he Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.”  Id. at 64. The RFP established the following evaluation factors:  cost/price and technical.  RFP at 63.  To evaluate proposals under the technical factor, the RFP included as an attachment a technical evaluation template which provided the subfactors against which offers would be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable.  Id. at 63-64; see also AR, Tab 6, RFP attach. 6, Technical Evaluation Template.  The technical evaluation template listed questions regarding whether the offeror had demonstrated technical capability for each of the following subfactors:  general requirements; management; design; schedule, site/civil; structural; building services (mechanical); electrical; and communications.  AR, Tab 6, RFP attach. 6, Technical Evaluation Template. The RFP also included a statement of work (SOW) which, as relevant here, stated the following requirements: 4.2.1.  The CONTRACTOR shall have at least one (1) qualified superintendent, or competent alternate, capable of reading, writing and conversing fluently in the English language, on the job-site at all times during the performance of contract work.  The CONTRACTOR shall have at least one (1) qualified Quality Control (QC) and one (1) Safety Manager (SM).  This can be the same person.  The QC must have a minimum of 5 years of experience as a QC.  The SM must have a minimum of 5 years of experience as a SM.  Both the QC and SM must have fluent English communication skills. 4.2.2.  The Project Superintendent must be familiar with the requirements of EM 385-1-1[2] and have [a] minimum five (5) years of experience in the areas of hazard identification and safety compliance. AR, Tab 5, SOW at 17. The management subfactor of the technical evaluation template included the following three of four evaluation questions: 1.   Does the technical proposal include evidence of the Project Superintendent’s experience, qualifications, Commercial Licenses and number of projects [in accordance with] IAW SOW para 4.2.2? 2.   Does the technical proposal include evidence of the Safety Manager’s experience, qualifications, Commercial Licenses IAW SOW para 4.2.1? 3.   Does the technical proposal include evidence of the Quality Control Manager’s experience, qualifications, Commercial Licenses IAW SOW para 4.2.1? AR, Tab 6, RFP attach. 6, Technical Evaluation Template, at 2.  Diversified utilized the technical evaluation template to prepare its proposal by including the questions in the template in its proposal and then providing responses.  In its proposal, Diversified provided a consolidated response to the above three questions as follows: Mr.