Williams Building Company, Inc.

B-417210,B-417210.2,B-417210.3 Mar 29, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Williams Building Company, Inc. (Williams), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), of West Yarmouth, Massachusetts, protests the award of a contract to Monument Construction, LLC (Monument), of Nashua, New Hampshire, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36E77618R0062, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for construction services at the VA medical center (VAMC) in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably found the awardee's proposal to be technically acceptable. 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:  Williams Building Company, Inc. File:  B-417210; B-417210.2; B-417210.3 Date:  March 29, 2019 Kevin M. Cox, Esq., Camardo Law Firm, PC, for the protester. Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Shane J. McCall, Esq., and Haley E. Claxton, Esq., Koprince Law, LLC, for Monument Construction, LLC, the intervenor. Deborah K. Morrell, Esq., and Donald C. Mobly, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Evan C. Williams, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the evaluation of the awardee’s proposal is denied where record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Williams Building Company, Inc. (Williams), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), of West Yarmouth, Massachusetts, protests the award of a contract to Monument Construction, LLC (Monument), of Nashua, New Hampshire, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36E77618R0062, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for construction services at the VA medical center (VAMC) in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts.  The protester argues that the agency unreasonably found the awardee’s proposal to be technically acceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 15, 2018, the VA issued the RFP as a SDVOSB set-aside, under the provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 15 and 36, for the construction of an addition to the research facility at the Jamaica Plain VAMC.  RFP at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), at 1.  The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to provide all labor, materials, equipment, transportation, supervision, general demolition, general construction, alterations, mechanical and electrical work, testing and commissioning and certain other items for the construction of the research facility addition.[1]  RFP at 1, 6-7. The RFP stated that award would be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis, considering the following two evaluation factors:  technical, and price.  Id. at 53.  The technical factor included the following four elements:  construction experience, project execution, key personnel experience, and past performance.  Id. at 57-60.  The RFP further stated that to receive consideration for award, a rating of acceptable must be achieved for the technical factor.  Id. at 53. As relevant to this protest, under the construction experience element, offerors were required to identify a minimum of one, and a maximum of three, construction projects that best demonstrated their experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the project contemplated by the RFP.[2]  Id. at 58.  The RFP further provided that the projects must demonstrate construction experience as a prime construction contractor directly responsible to the owner and managing multiple subcontractors.  Id.  Additionally, the solicitation required projects identified to have a minimum value of $2 million and be 100 percent completed within the five years preceding the date of issuance of the RFP.  Id.  Under the technical evaluation factor, the RFP established that the agency would review proposals and assign a rating of acceptable or unacceptable.  Id.