DPBC HZ Joint Venture

B-415612 Jan 31, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DPBC HZ Joint Venture (DPBC), a Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) joint venture of Sanford, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Herve Cody Contractor, of Robbinsville, North Carolina, by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps) under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912EP-17-R-0018 for the Kissimmee River Restoration Project S-69 Weir and Canal Backfill in Okeechobee and Highland Counties, Florida. The protester challenges the evaluation of its proposal and the selection decision. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  DPBC HZ Joint Venture File:  B-415612 Date:  January 31, 2018 Fernando Neris, PE, for the protester. Christopher Lambert, Esq., and Matthew Haynes, Esq., Department of the Army, 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 Protest challenging the agency's determination that the protester's proposal was not responsive and therefore unacceptable is denied where the agency reasonably determined that the protester's proposal did not satisfy the solicitation's requirements. DECISION DPBC HZ Joint Venture (DPBC), a Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) joint venture of Sanford, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Herve Cody Contractor, of Robbinsville, North Carolina, by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps) under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912EP-17-R-0018 for the Kissimmee River Restoration Project S-69 Weir and Canal Backfill in Okeechobee and Highland Counties, Florida.  The protester challenges the evaluation of its proposal and the selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on June 21, 2017, was set aside for HUBZone small businesses, and contemplated award of a contract on a lowest-priced, technically-acceptable basis. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 48.[1]  The RFP stated that to be considered technically acceptable, an offeror's proposal must be rated as acceptable under the following non-price factors:  demonstrated technical experience and past performance.  Id. at 48-49.  The demonstrated technical experience factor consisted of three subfactors:  (A) construction of earthen levee embankment; (B) heavy civil construction involving movement of at least 200,000 cubic yards of soil, subgrade preparation, placement of reinforced concrete slabs, and driving of steel sheet pile;[2] and (C) construction in a wet site with fluctuating groundwater levels ranging between zero feet (ground surface) and two feet below ground surface.[3]  RFP at 53.  The RFP required offerors to submit at least one and no more than three examples of recent and relevant experience on the same or similar completed civil construction projects or close to completed projects for each subfactor.[4]  Id. at 53.  The RFP included a worksheet that solicited 17 data items and required that offerors utilize the worksheet to provide project information for each of the demonstrated technical experience subfactors.  Id. at 54, 60-61. As relevant to the protest, the RFP required that an offeror must have been the prime contractor on one of the projects submitted under each demonstrated technical experience subfactor.  RFP at 54.  The RFP also instructed that if any portion of the work submitted as demonstrated technical experience was subcontracted, the offerors should clearly identify the subcontracted work and provide the required experience for the subcontractor as it relates to the work the subcontractor would be performing under the current requirement.  Id.  The RFP further advised that a joint venture entity should submit at least one and no more than three projects for the combined joint venture, and specifically stated:  "If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience of each of the joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture entity.  These projects will be evaluated separately; however, the overall evaluation for the demonstrated [technical] experience [factor] will be combined to form one overall evaluation rating for the joint venture."  Id. at 1027.  In addition, the RFP required that any projects the offeror provided under the demonstrated technical experience factor, including projects performed by subcontractors, have a corresponding submission for the past performance factor.  Id.  Any projects submitted for the demonstrated technical experience factor that did not have a corresponding past performance submission would not be evaluated.  Id.  The RFP further explained that if the agency concluded the demonstrated technical experience was acceptable, it would also conclude that the past performance was relevant.  Id.