Armstrong Elevator Company

B-415809 Mar 28, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Armstrong Elevator Company (Armstrong), a small business of Largo, Florida, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. 47PM0218R0001, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for elevator and escalator modernization and maintenance at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) headquarters building in Washington, D.C. Armstrong contends that aspects of the RFP are unduly restrictive of competition and defective. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Armstrong Elevator Company File:  B-415809 Date:  March 28, 2018 Roy Armstrong, for the protester. Claire Watkins, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the terms of a solicitation for elevator and escalator modernization as unduly restrictive of competition is denied where the agency demonstrates a reasonable basis for the required approach. DECISION Armstrong Elevator Company (Armstrong), a small business of Largo, Florida, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. 47PM0218R0001, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for elevator and escalator modernization and maintenance at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) headquarters building in Washington, D.C.  Armstrong contends that aspects of the RFP are unduly restrictive of competition and defective. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND GSA issued the RFP on November 21, 2017, on an unrestricted basis.[1]  Exh. A, Contracting Officer’s Statement, at 3; AR, Tab 10, RFP at 15.  The statement of work (SOW) stated that all of the vertical transportation (16 passenger traction elevators, 2 freight traction elevators, 2 hydraulic freight elevators, and 6 escalators) and support equipment in the FAA headquarters building are outdated and have reached the end of their useful lifespan.[2]  AR, Tab 12, RFP SOW at 1.  Accordingly, GSA sought a contractor to perform a fixed-price design-build contract for a vertical transportation modernization project.  RFP at 20; AR, Tab 11, Elevator Agreement, at 2.[3]  The scope of work also included upgrading, replacing, surveying, designing, and constructing selected building conveyance systems.  Id.  The price range for the project was estimated to be between $15 and $20 million.  RFP at 5. As relevant here, the contract would consist of a base contract, five option contract line item numbers (CLINs), and five alternate CLINs.  AR, Tab 11, Elevator Agreement, at 2.  The base contract sought a contractor to provide all requirements to replace eight passenger traction elevators[4] and one freight traction elevator, along with all specified support functions, such as electrical service and machine room painting.  Id.  The RFP also identified five option CLINs to: (1) replace a second set of eight passenger traction elevators and one freight traction elevator along with all specified support functions; (2) modernize six escalators and all specified support functions; (3) modernize two hydraulic freight elevators with all specified support functions; (4) provide maintenance and call-back contract services for all vertical transportation (16  passenger traction elevators, 2 traction freight elevators, 2 hydraulic freight elevators, and 6 escalators) beginning on the date that the construction starts until all base contract and awarded options are substantially completed;[5] and (5) provide a full five years of maintenance and call-back contract services that would start immediately after the one-year warranty period ends.  Id.  The RFP stated that unless otherwise specified, all options could be exercised within 90 days of contract award.  Id. at 5.  The alternate CLINs provided for either various accelerations to the work schedule for completing work under the base contract or certain options, or identified alternate tasks for the contractor to perform.[6]  Id. at 3.  Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors, listed in descending order of importance:  past experience on similar projects, past performance, key personnel, technical/management approach and schedule, and price.  RFP at 25-26.  The solicitation stated that non-price factors when combined were to be significantly more important than total evaluated price.  Id. at 26.  As relevant to the past experience factor, the solicitation required offerors to demonstrate successful experience as a contractor responsible for design and construction of three “similarly complex” elevator projects that were substantially completed in the last five years.  Id. at 9.