United Excel Corporation

B-415442 Jan 04, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights United Excel Corporation (UEC), of Shawnee Mission, Kansas, protests the issuance of a task order to Gilbane Federal Joint Venture, of Walnut Creek, California, by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9127S-17-R-6060, for design, build, outfit, and transition services at the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. UEC argues that the Corps conducted misleading discussions, misevaluated proposals, 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:  United Excel Corporation File:  B-415442 Date:  January 4, 2018 Reginald M. Jones, Esq., Nicholas T. Solosky, Esq., and Rachel M. Severance, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for the protester. Douglas L. Patin, Esq., Aron C. Beezley, Esq., and Lisa A. Markman, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for Gilbane Federal Joint Venture, the intervenor. S. DeAnn Lehigh, Esq., and Michael T. Geiselhart, Esq., Department of the Army, 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 1.  Protest that agency held misleading discussions is denied where agency identified deficiency in protester's initial proposal and accurately described it during discussions, and thus protester was not misled when its revised proposal addressed only part of the agency's concerns and agency did not discuss the issue further when requesting final proposal revisions.  2.  Protest challenging evaluation of proposals and source selection decision is denied where evaluation was reasonable, consistent with solicitation criteria, reflected equal treatment between protester's and awardee's proposals, and supported agency's tradeoff decision to award contract to higher-rated and higher-priced proposal.  DECISION United Excel Corporation (UEC), of Shawnee Mission, Kansas, protests the issuance of a task order to Gilbane Federal Joint Venture, of Walnut Creek, California, by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9127S-17-R-6060,[1] for design, build, outfit, and transition services at the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado.  UEC argues that the Corps conducted misleading discussions, misevaluated proposals, and made an unreasonable source selection decision.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Corps issued the RFP on June 22, 2017, seeking proposals from the three eligible firms to design, build, outfit, and transition the ambulatory surgery and outpatient facility, as described in the statement of work (SOW).  RFP at 1, 47-123.  The SOW included explanations of the main problems offerors' were to address in their designs.  Fundamentally, the SOW explained that main facility (the ambulatory care center) was located in a historic building originally constructed as a hospital in 1960.  Id. at 53.  The SOW explained that the change from a hospital to an ambulatory surgery clinic meant that many departments had inadequate layouts, were in inefficient spaces, and had substandard heating/ventilation/air conditioning systems and electrical supply.  Id. at 54.  In describing the surgery department, the SOW specifically noted that the current design used a single path of travel between operating room suite and the ambulatory surgery unit/post-anesthesia care unit.  Id.  The single path was thus used by ambulatory patients, post-anesthesia patients, staff, and visitors, which created inefficient patient and staff flow, and caused a mixing of people that was not sufficiently patient-centered.  Id.  The SOW also identified as another problem the inadequate size, obsolescence, and location of the sterile processing distribution (SPD) function.  Id.  Additionally, among the specifications was a requirement for the design to include a "new corridor directly connecting the new Dental Clinic to the Surgery Center for access to locker rooms, staff lounge and SPD."  Id. at 68.  The Corps was to evaluate proposals under six factors.  The most important was past performance, followed by four technical factors:  project delivery team, technical design, schedule, risk assessment.  The final factor (and least significant overall) was the offerors' evaluated prices.  RFP amend. 1 at 12.  The RFP also listed two evaluation criteria under the technical design factor:  design and functional concepts, and quality of materials.  Id. at 7.