W-T, Joint Venture (W912HN19R3000)

B-417905.2 Dec 07, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights W-T Joint Venture, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, protests the award of a contract to G.M. Hill Engineering, Inc., of Jacksonville, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HN19-R-3000, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), for general construction. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation and the selection decision. 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:  W-T, Joint Venture File:  B-417905.2 Date:  December 7, 2020 Alan W. Bardell, Esq., and Robert L. Magrini, Esq., Hayes Magrini & Gatewood, for the protester. Michael A. Gordon, Esq., Michael A. Gordon PLLC, for G.M. Hill Engineering, Inc., the intervenor. Thomas J. Warren, Esq., Phillip Paradise, Esq., and Connie L. Baran, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation and selection of technically superior, higher-priced proposal in a two-phased design-build process is denied where the record shows that the evaluation and selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors. DECISION W-T Joint Venture, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, protests the award of a contract to G.M. Hill Engineering, Inc., of Jacksonville, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HN19-R-3000, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), for general construction.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation and the selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was set aside for 8(a) small businesses, was issued on August 23, 2019, under the two-phase design-build provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.3.[1]  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The RFP contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract (which the agency refers to as a “single award task order contract (SATOC)”) with a 2‑year base period and three 1‑year option periods for general construction work on military installations in Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3a, Phase I Solicitation at 3, 10.  The maximum dollar value for all task orders under this contract, including the base period and all options, was $95,000,000.  Id. at 53.  The procurement was to be conducted using the two-phase design-build selection process.[2]  Under phase one, the agency was to evaluate proposals against two evaluation factors, past performance and design experience.  AR, Tab 3h, RFP at 27‑32.  The solicitation stated that the government would then select no more than five of the most highly qualified offerors to submit proposals for phase two.  Id. at 26.  Those offerors selected to proceed to phase two would be required to submit proposals for a sample or “seed” task order.  In phase two, proposals were to be evaluated using the following evaluation factors:  past performance, design experience, technical approach, and price.[3]  Id.  After completing the phase two evaluations, the solicitation advised that the agency would make its best-value award decision based on a comparative assessment of proposals, considering all price and non-price factors.  Id. at 34. For the price factor, offerors were to propose area coefficients and a home office overhead rate.  RFP at 6, 32.  The coefficients would be applied to the estimated amount of work in each location and the total was used to establish a total evaluated price, which would be used to make the best-value tradeoff decision.  Id.  The solicitation stated that the government would perform a price analysis to determine fairness and reasonableness.  Id. at 32. The agency received timely phase one proposals from 25 offerors, including W-T and G.M. Hill.  COS at 1.  A source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated proposals and the contracting officer, who served as the source selection authority (SSA), selected five offerors, including W-T and G.M. Hill, to proceed to phase two of the competition.  Id.  The agency released the phase two solicitation on March 31, 2020.  Id. at 2.  The five firms subsequently submitted phase two proposals.  Id.  W-T’s and G.M. Hill’s proposals were evaluated as follows:[4]   W-T G.M.