Fisher Sand & Gravel Company

B-417496 Jul 26, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Fisher Sand & Gravel Company, of Dickinson, North Dakota, challenges the award of a contract to SLSCO, Ltd. (SLS), of Galveston, Texas, by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), under solicitation No. W9126G19R9002 (solicitation 9002), for construction along the U.S. border in New Mexico. The protester challenges the terms of the solicitation and also argues that the agency failed to evaluate proposals in a manner consistent with solicitation's evaluation criteria.  We dismiss in part and deny in part 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:  Fisher Sand & Gravel Company File:  B-417496 Date:  July 26, 2019 Scott R. Sleight, Esq., and Ellie Perka, Esq., Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC, for the protester. David R. Hazelton, Esq., Kyle R. Jefcoat, Esq., Dean W. Baxtresser, Esq., and Chase A. Chesser, Esq., Latham & Watkins LLP, for SLSCO, Ltd., the intervenor. Blake M. Hedgecock, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest allegations challenging the terms of a solicitation are dismissed as untimely because they were filed after the time for receipt of proposals. 2.  Challenge to the evaluation of the protester’s proposal is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 3.  Supplemental protest arguing that the agency’s evaluation of offerors’ proposals was inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation is dismissed where it was filed more than 10 days after receiving the documents upon which the argument was based. 4.  Protester is not an interested party to challenge the evaluation of the awardee’s qualifications to perform the contract where, even if the argument had merit, an intervening offeror, rather than the protester, would be next in line for award. DECISION Fisher Sand & Gravel Company, of Dickinson, North Dakota, challenges the award of a contract to SLSCO, Ltd. (SLS), of Galveston, Texas, by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), under solicitation No. W9126G19R9002 (solicitation 9002), for construction along the U.S. border in New Mexico.  The protester challenges the terms of the solicitation and also argues that the agency failed to evaluate proposals in a manner consistent with solicitation’s evaluation criteria.  We dismiss in part and deny in part the protest. BACKGROUND The 9002 Solicitation The Corps issued the solicitation on March 28, 2019, seeking proposals for phase 1 of a 2-phase competition under the architect-engineer competition provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.6.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Solicitation, at 2.[2]  The solicitation anticipated the award of a design-build contract for construction of roads and fences, and installation of lighting along the U.S. border near El Paso, New Mexico.  Id.  The procurement was limited to firms that had been prequalified by the agency in 2018 to perform construction work in Arizona, and that were listed on the prequalified sources list (PQSL) 2, which included Fisher and SLS.[3]  Agency Request for Dismissal, Apr. 29, 2019, at 2.    The solicitation stated that the agency would conduct the phase 1 evaluation “by considering information on hand and responses to Enclosure 1 which includes questions and a [contract line item number (CLIN)] Structure.”[4]  Solicitation at 2.  The solicitation further stated that after evaluating the proposals, the agency would select “the most highly qualified single firm” for the phase 2 competition, which would involve negotiations with that firm for the purpose of entering into a contract.  Id. Enclosure 1 to the solicitation contained the following 10 questions, listed in descending order of importance, which offerors were required to address in their proposals:  Q1  List all current Border Infrastructure Barrier Projects your firm is working on or has worked on in the past five years.  NOTE:The Government intends to verify past performance by any and all means available so your firm must ensure that projects are described with enough information that the Government can identify the projects to verify the past performance. Q2  Does your firm have the capacity to support several concurrent scoping site visits at multiple remote sites within 48 hours of notification?  If yes, please explain how your firm will achieve this. Q3  Does your firm have the ability to start panel emplacement within 45 days [of] contract award?  If yes, please explain how your firm will achieve this. Q4  Does your firm have the ability to bond up to $1 [billion] for a single projec...