GSI Construction Corporation (FA3010-19-R-A007)

B-418084 Jan 06, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights GSI Construction Corporation (GSI), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Pace, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Chiefs Construction Company, LLC (Chiefs), an SDVOSB of D'Iberville, Mississippi, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA3010-19-R-A007, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for renovation and repair work at Arnold Hall, Keesler Air Force Base (AFB), Mississippi. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of its past performance was unreasonable. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  GSI Construction Corporation File:  B-418084 Date:  January 6, 2020 Joshua Owens, for the protester. Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Major Alexander L. Lowry, and Christopher B. Bennett, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency’s evaluation of offeror’s past performance is reasonable because the evaluation of past performance is consistent with the evaluation criteria and supported by the evaluation record. DECISION GSI Construction Corporation (GSI), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Pace, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Chiefs Construction Company, LLC (Chiefs), an SDVOSB of D’Iberville, Mississippi, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA3010-19-R-A007, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for renovation and repair work at Arnold Hall, Keesler Air Force Base (AFB), Mississippi.  The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of its past performance was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on April 8, 2019, as a set-aside for SDVOSBs, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation part 15, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, with a 1-year period of performance, for repair and renovation services at Arnold Hall, Keesler AFB.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP at 1.  Specifically, the agency required contractor support for the demolition and installation of partition walls, doors, frames, flooring, electrical, lights, and bathrooms, as well as patching and painting existing walls.  Id. at 43-50; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2.  The solicitation advised that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, utilizing two evaluation factors, past performance and price, with past performance considered significantly more important than price.  RFP at 37.  The solicitation explained that the Air Force would initially evaluate proposals for technical acceptability, namely, whether proposals met the minimum requirements outlined in the solicitation.  Id.  Proposals rated as technically acceptable would then be ranked according to price; an offeror’s proposed price would be evaluated for reasonableness.  Id.  The Air Force would then evaluate an offeror’s past performance.  Id.  Under the past performance factor, the solicitation advised that the agency would “seek recent and relevant performance information on offerors based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.”  Id. at 37.  Offerors were required to provide a list of no more than three of their most relevant contracts performed within the last three years.[1]  Id. at 33.  Considering an offeror’s past performance information, the agency would assess an offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in the RFP, and then assign one of five overall performance confidence assessment ratings:  substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or neutral.[2]  Id. at 37. The solicitation stated that if the lowest-priced offeror was assessed a performance confidence assessment rating of substantial confidence, award would be made to that offeror.  Id. at 38.  If the lowest-priced offeror was not assigned a substantial confidence rating, the agency would evaluate the next lowest-priced offeror.  Id.  The agency’s evaluation would continue until a proposal was assessed a substantial confidence rating, at which point, the agency would make an “integrated assessment best value award decision.”  Id.  The Air Force received multiple proposals by the June 6 deadline, including proposals from GSI and Chiefs.  AR, Tab 21, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), at 1; COS at 5.  All submitted proposals were deemed technically acceptable and to offer fair and reasonable prices.  COS at 5.  Following the agency’s evaluation of past performance for the two lowest-priced offerors, the Air Force moved to the third lowest-priced offeror, GSI.[3]  Id.