Alexandra Construction, Inc.

B-417212 Apr 02, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Alexandra Construction, Inc., of Newton, Massachusetts, protests the award of a contract to Stone & Lime Imports, Inc. (S&L), of Brookfield, Massachusetts, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 47PB0018R0010, issued by the General Services Administration for building maintenance and repair services. The protester alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated the proposals. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Alexandra Construction, Inc. File: B-417212 Date: April 2, 2019 Gregory T. Clark, Alexandra Construction, Inc., for the protester. Timothy T. Corey, Esq., Hinckley Allen, for Stone & Lime Imports, Inc., the intervenor. Meaghan LeClerc, Esq., and Nancy O'Connell, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest is denied where the record shows that the agency's experience and past performance evaluations were consistent with the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. 2. Protest is denied where the protester did not suffer competitive prejudice from the agency's unequal treatment of offerors' status on examples of referenced experience or from the agency's waiver of a material term of the solicitation with respect to its evaluation of the awardee's proposal. DECISION Alexandra Construction, Inc., of Newton, Massachusetts, protests the award of a contract to Stone & Lime Imports, Inc. (S&L), of Brookfield, Massachusetts, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 47PB0018R0010, issued by the General Services Administration for building maintenance and repair services. The protester alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated the proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on July 6, 2018, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for masonry repair and repointing services at the J.W. McCormack Federal Office Building in Boston, Massachusetts. RFP at 5, 17; RFP, Project Manual, § 01100. The J.W. McCormack Federal Office Building is an historic Art Deco style building with ziggurat fashioned towers and granite-belt friezes. John W. McCormack U.S. Post Office and Courthouse, Boston, MA, https://www.gsa.gov/historic-buildings/john-w-mccormack-us-post-office-… (last visited Apr. 1, 2019). Proposals were to be evaluated on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering total evaluated price and the following non-price factors, listed in descending order of importance: experience on similar projects, qualifications and experiences of key personnel, past performance, and project management plan and approach. RFP at 28-29. When combined, the non-price factors were equal in importance to the total evaluated price. Id. at 29. For the experience factor, offerors were instructed to submit between four and six examples of completed projects. RFP at 8. Offerors were advised that their examples would be evaluated based on their relevance (i.e., projects of similar scope and complexity, and completed within the last ten years, would be rated more favorably). Id. at 30. Offerors were also advised that the referenced experience must satisfy five minimum characteristics, including (1) each completed project must include extensive exterior restoration or replacement of deteriorated stone on a masonry façade; (2) at least two of the referenced examples must have had a minimum construction cost of $2 million; (3) at least one of the referenced examples must have involved a building listed in or eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places; (4) at least one of the referenced examples must have involved a building that remained continuously occupied during the construction phase; and (5) at least one of the referenced examples must have been located in an urban high traffic location. Id. at 31. For each referenced example, offerors were also required to submit general information, including the location of the project, the level of authority (e.g., prime contractor, major subcontractor), and a point of contact. Id. at 30-31. In addition, the solicitation specified that at least two of the projects "must have been located in Northern New England." Id. at 30. For the past performance factor, offerors were instructed to submit past performance questionnaires (PPQ) for each example provided under the experience factor. RFP at 10. The agency would first assess the relevancy of the referenced examples compared to the scope of the contract. Id. at 33. Referenced examples involving similar scope, complexities, and magnitude of effort to the instant solicitation's requirements would be assessed more favorably. Id.