Contractor Services Group, Inc.

B-415601 Jan 31, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Contractor Services Group, Inc. (CSG), of West Sacramento, California, protests the award of a contract to North Star Great Lakes E&I Joint Venture (NSGL), of Yuba City, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91238-17-R-0008, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), for levee construction improvements. CSG primarily challenges the agency's affirmative responsibility determination. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Contractor Services Group, Inc. File:  B-415601 Date:  January 31, 2018 Shelli R. Moreda, for the protester. Paul R. Hurst, Esq., Michael N. Navarre, Esq., and Caitlin T. Conroy, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson LLP, for North Star Great Lakes E&I Joint Venture, the intervenor. Annette B. Kuz, Esq., Alarice R. Hansberry, Esq., Alfred L. Faustino, Esq., and Carolyn A. Alexander, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging an agency's affirmative determination of the awardee's responsibility on the ground that the contracting officer failed to consider relevant responsibility information is denied where the record shows that the contracting officer was aware of and considered the information at issue as part of the responsibility determination. 2.  Protest of an agency's evaluation of experience and past performance is denied where the evaluations and source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Contractor Services Group, Inc. (CSG), of West Sacramento, California, protests the award of a contract to North Star Great Lakes E&I Joint Venture (NSGL), of Yuba City, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91238-17-R-0008, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), for levee construction improvements.  CSG primarily challenges the agency's affirmative responsibility determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was set aside for small business, provided for the award of a fixed-price construction contract for various improvements to the levee system in Marysville, California.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP at 1, 22.  The RFP stated that award would be based on a best-value tradeoff among the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  experience and capability (experience); technical and management approach (technical approach); past performance; and price.  AR, Tab 9, RFP amend. 5, at 2-4.  The solicitation advised that the non-price evaluation factors, when combined, were significantly more important than the price factor.  Id. at 3.  The RFP permitted a joint venture (JV) to submit a proposal, but requested additional information in this respect, including a copy of the JV agreement and financial statements from each JV partner, among other things.  See id. at 9-10, 17, 21-22. With respect to the experience and past performance evaluation factors, offerors were to identify at least two, but no more than three, construction projects performed within the last 10 years from the date of the solicitation, in which the offeror "self-performed" specified types of seepage cutoff walls.  Id. 14.  For each project, offerors were also to submit a formal performance evaluation if available, or a completed past performance questionnaire from the client using the form provided with the RFP.  Id. at 21, 24-27. The Corps received proposals from three offerors, including CSG and NSGL, and conducted discussions with all offerors.  AR, Tab 17, Source Selection Decision (SSD), at 2-3.  CSG's and NSGL's final revised proposals were evaluated as follows:   CSG NSGL Experience Acceptable Good Technical Approach Acceptable Acceptable Past Performance Satisfactory Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Total Evaluated Price $5,251,265 $4,222,270 Id. at 4, 8.  The technical and price evaluations are documented in the record.  See, e.g., AR, Tabs 11-12, Initial & Rev.