Up-Side Management Company

B-417440,B-417440.2 Jul 08, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Up-Side Management Company (Up-side), of Hubert, North Carolina, protests the award of contracts to five contractors under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-19-R-8000, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command for maintenance and repair construction projects in New River, North Carolina and surrounding areas. Up-side challenges the agency's evaluation of the awardees' proposals. 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:  Up-Side Management Company File:  B-417440; B-417440.2 Date:   July 8, 2019 Peter B. Ford, Esq., Meghan F. Leemon, Esq., and Samuel S. Finnerty, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Colleen M. Shook, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 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 against an agency’s evaluation of five awardees’ non-price proposals is denied where the record shows the allegations are without merit, or that any alleged evaluation errors did not result in competitive prejudice to the protester. DECISION Up-Side Management Company (Up-side), of Hubert, North Carolina, protests the award of contracts to five contractors under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-19-R-8000, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command for maintenance and repair construction projects in New River, North Carolina and surrounding areas.[1]  Up-side challenges the agency’s evaluation of the awardees’ proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On October 26, 2018, the agency issued the RFP as a small business set-aside and contemplated the award of up to five indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts with a performance period of a base year and four 1-year option periods.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP at 1, 3.  The RFP sought a diverse range of general maintenance and repair construction services for small work requirements of a one-time nature that would be performed primarily at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejune and Marine Corps Air Station in New River, North Carolina.  Id. at 3.The RFP also sought performance of a seed project, entitled Repair Heads, Building 1747 and 516, that included various construction projects, such as painting and mounting lighting fixtures.  Id.; AR, Tab 3, Government Estimate, at 1-2.[2] The RFP contemplated award on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis.  RFP at 9.  In this regard, the RFP included an “efficient competition” provision, which explained that the agency would first screen proposals for price, and place them in order from lowest to highest priced.  Id.  Next, the agency would evaluate the eight lowest-priced proposals under the technical factors.  Id.  The RFP stated that the Navy intended to make award from among the eight lowest-priced proposals that were found to be technically acceptable.  Id.  Additionally, the RFP provided that the agency, at its sole discretion, reserved the right to increase the number of proposals it would review under this methodology.  Id.  The RFP advised offerors that “under this methodology, the technical factors of some proposals may not be evaluated by the Navy.”  Id.  The solicitation stated that the government intended to make award without discussions, and reserved the right to conduct discussions if later determined to be necessary.  Id. The RFP identified four non-price evaluation factors: (1) corporate experience; (2) safety; (3) management approach; and (4) past performance.  Id.  As relevant here, one element of the safety evaluation was to be based on the offeror’s experience modification rate (EMR).  Id. at 11.  The RFP required each offeror to submit its EMR “from the three previous complete calendar years,” and stated that EMRs would be evaluated to determine whether the offeror demonstrated a history of safe work practices.  Id. at 11, 12 (emphasis in original).  Further, the RFP noted that “the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete safety information regarding these submittal requirements rests with the offeror.”  Id. at 12. An unacceptable rating in any of the evaluation factors would result in the non-price proposal being rated unacceptable.  Id. at 9.  An acceptable rating would be assigned to a proposal that met the minimum requirements of the solicitation; an unacceptable rating would be assigned to a proposal that did not meet the minimum requirements.  Id.