Constructure-Trison JV, LLC

B-416741.2 Nov 21, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Constructure-Trison JV (CTJV), LLC, of Chantilly, Virginia, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40080-18-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for construction services. The protester argues that the agency improperly rejected its proposal based on an unreasonable interpretation of the solicitation. 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:  Constructure-Trison JV, LLC File:  B-416741.2 Date:  November 21, 2018 Douglas L. Patin, Esq., and Sarah S. Osborne, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Ann L. Giddings, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Joshua R. Gillerman, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency improperly rejected the protester's proposal is denied where the record shows that the protester's proposal failed to conform to the material terms and conditions of the solicitation. DECISION Constructure-Trison JV (CTJV),[1] LLC, of Chantilly, Virginia, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40080-18-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for construction services.  The protester argues that the agency improperly rejected its proposal based on an unreasonable interpretation of the solicitation.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on December 22, 2017, as a small-business set-aside, contemplated the award of five or more indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts for general construction projects and related services.  Agency Report (AR), Exhibit 1, RFP, at 1.  The aggregate maximum value for all contracts to be awarded was $240,000,000.  Id. Awards were to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, using a two-phase evaluation process and considering the following factors:  technical approach, experience, safety, past performance, technical solution, and price.  RFP at 12-13.  The RFP established that technical approach, experience, safety, and past performance would be evaluated during phase one.  Id. at 13.  Relevant here, under the technical approach factor, the RFP advised offerors that proposals would be rated acceptable or unacceptable.  Id.  Proposals found unacceptable under the technical approach factor during phase one of the competition would not be considered during phase two.  Id. Under the technical approach factor, the agency was to evaluate the composition and management of the firms proposed as the design-build team.  Id. at 14.  In order to receive an acceptable rating, offerors were required to provide a narrative describing the primary construction and design firms, the rationale for the proposed arrangement, and the roles, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the firms.  Id.  Offerors also needed to provide an organizational chart that clearly identified the lines of authority between the firms.  Id.  Additionally, and at issue here, offerors were required to provide: a signed copy of a joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, approved mentor protégé agreement (MPA), or letter of commitment for each member of the Offeror's team identified above (e.g. joint venture member, partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.). Id. The agency received [deleted] proposals in response to the solicitation.  AR, Combined Contracting Officer's Statement/Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL), at 2.  The technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated proposals and rated CTJV unacceptable under the technical approach factor.  AR, Exhibit 4, TET Report, at 12.  In this regard, CTJV's narrative had identified its design-build team as consisting of CTJV as the prime contractor, and [deleted] as its designer of record (DOR).  AR, Exhibit 8, CTJV Factor 1 Proposal Submission, at 4.  While CTJV provided a copy of its joint-venture agreement, as well as the firms' approved mentor-protégé agreement, CTJV did not provide any form of agreement documenting its arrangement with [deleted].  Id. at 6-14.