La Termica Srl

B-416964.2,B-416964.3 Jan 30, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights LA TERMICA Srl (La Termica), of Naples, Italy, protests the award of design-build/design-bid-build construction contracts to five firms under request for proposals (RFP) No. N33191-16-R-1022, issued by the Department of the Navy for new construction, renovation, alteration, and repair projects at Naval Support Activity Naples, Italy and surrounding areas. The protester contends that the agency conducted a flawed price evaluation, assigned unreasonable adjectival ratings to La Termica's proposal, failed to properly evaluate one of the awardees' construction certificates, and converted the basis of award from best-value tradeoff to lowest-priced technically acceptable. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  LA TERMICA Srl File:  B-416964.2; B-416964.3 Date:  January 30, 2019 Salvatore Cino, Esq., for the protester. Kenneth Jerome Rich, Sr., Esq., and Patricia Windon Walter, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging price evaluation is denied where the agency evaluated price reasonableness in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria and where the solicitation did not require a price realism analysis. 2.  Protest challenging the adjectival ratings assigned to protester’s proposal is denied where the protester’s objections did not rise beyond disagreement with the agency’s evaluation judgment. DECISION LA TERMICA Srl (La Termica), of Naples, Italy, protests the award of design-build/design-bid-build construction contracts to five firms under request for proposals (RFP) No. N33191-16-R-1022, issued by the Department of the Navy for new construction, renovation, alteration, and repair projects at Naval Support Activity Naples, Italy and surrounding areas.[1]  The protester contends that the agency conducted a flawed price evaluation, assigned unreasonable adjectival ratings to La Termica’s proposal, failed to properly evaluate one of the awardees’ construction certificates, and converted the basis of award from best-value tradeoff to lowest-priced technically acceptable.[2] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was issued on January 10, 2017, contemplated the award of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts for the construction (design-bid-build and design-build), renovation or repair, and demolition of facilities, waterfront, airfields, or other related infrastructure, primarily at the Naval Support Activity Naples and surrounding areas.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The contractors are to provide the design, construction, supervision, equipment, materials, labor, and all means necessary to provide the Navy with complete and usable facilities.  Id. The solicitation anticipated award would be made to the offerors whose proposals were determined to be the most advantageous to the agency considering both price and non-price evaluation factors.  RFP at 15.  The procurement would be conducted as a two-phase, design-build procurement that would result in the award of fixed-price contracts with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods.  COS at 1-2.   During Phase I, proposals would be evaluated using three factors:  technical approach, experience, and past performance.  RFP at 16.[3]  Based on these factors, the agency anticipated that approximately ten of the most highly-rated offerors would proceed to Phase II.  Id.  During Phase II, the agency would evaluate two additional factors:  safety and technical solution.  Id.  For the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision, experience, safety, and technical solution were of equal importance, and, when combined, of equal importance to past performance.  Id.  When all of the non-price evaluation factors were combined, they were “approximately equal” to price.  Id.  Under the technical approach factor, the agency would evaluate the composition and management of the firms proposed as the design-build team for the contract.  Id. at 17. In contrast, under the technical solution factor, the agency would evaluate each offeror’s narrative responding to a seed project to determine how the requirements of the RFP would be met.  RFP amend.