REEL COH Inc. (W9127N-19-R-0004)

B-418095,B-418095.2 Jan 10, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights REEL COH, Inc., of Boisbriand, Quebec, Canada, protests the award of a contract to Knight Construction and Supply, Inc., of Deer Park, Washington, by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9127N-19-R-0004, for the installation of a crane at the Dalles Lock and Dam in Oregon. REEL challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals, and the source 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:  REEL COH Inc. File:  B-418095; B-418095.2 Date:  January 10, 2020 Franklin C. Turner, Esq., Alexander W. Major, Esq., Cara A. Wulf, Esq., and Ethan M. Brown, Esq., McCarter & English, LLP, for the protester. Richard D. Campbell, Esq., and Michael S. Bissell, Esq., Campbell & Bissell, PLLC, for Knight Construction and Supply, Inc., the intervenor. Autumn V. Lovato, Esq., and Thomas J. Warren, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Evan C. Williams, Esq., and Stephanie B. Magnell, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protester, whose proposed price was found to be unreasonably high and therefore ineligible for award, is nevertheless an interested party to raise challenges that the awardee’s proposal should have also been found ineligible for award where the competition only includes two offerors. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of awardee’s proposal under the past experience and schedule evaluation factors is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION REEL COH, Inc., of Boisbriand, Quebec, Canada, protests the award of a contract to Knight Construction and Supply, Inc., of Deer Park, Washington, by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9127N-19-R-0004, for the installation of a crane at the Dalles Lock and Dam in Oregon.  REEL challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals, and the source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On December 11, 2018, the agency issued the RFP pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 18, RFP at 1.[1]  The RFP sought proposals to replace the existing 265 ton emergency gantry crane with a new 480 ton intake gantry crane.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The contractor was to design, manufacture, install, test, and commission the new intake gantry crane and remove the existing emergency gantry crane.  Id.  The contractor would perform additional related work such as replacement of crane rails, crane rail ground straps, and the electrical supply connection.  Id. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price hybrid supply/construction contract to the offeror “whose proposal is determined to be the ‘best value’ to the Government, price and other [f]actors considered.”  RFP at 7, 652. The RFP established the following four non-price evaluation factors:  past experience, past performance, schedule, and small business participation.  Id. at 652. The past experience and past performance factors were of approximately equal importance, and were more important than the schedule factor.  Id.  The small business participation factor was the least important factor.  Id.  All of the non-price evaluation factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id.    REEL’s protest focuses primarily on the agency’s evaluation under the past experience and schedule factors.  Under the past experience factor, offerors were required to submit up to four projects demonstrating their experience performing similar projects.  Id. at 640.  The solicitation allowed offerors to use the past experience of major subcontractors[2] to demonstrate the required experience, so long as the offeror submitted a letter of commitment from the subcontractor.  Id.  The RFP provided proposals would be evaluated to determine the breadth and depth of the offeror’s past experience designing, manufacturing, and installing new cranes that were similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP’s effort.  Id. at 654.  Although each project submitted need not demonstrate experience in all three major project phases (design, manufacture, and installation), the offeror’s past experience proposal, in its totality, must demonstrate experience in all three phases.  Id. at 655.  As relevant to the protest, the government was to review offerors’ past experience projects according to the following criteria:  crane type, crane capacity, crane components and capabilities, and crane installation.  Id.