DGCI Corporation (N62470-20-R-4001)

B-418494 Apr 27, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DGCI Corporation, of McLean, Virginia, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. N62470-20-R-4001, issued by the Department of the Navy, for design-build construction services at Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily, Italy. The protester argues that the solicitation unduly restricts competition by requiring prime contractors to have a specialized certification to perform the work, and that the agency's basis for evaluation is flawed. We dismiss the protest because the protester is not an interested party. View Decision Decision Matter of:  DGCI Corporation File:  B-418494 Date:  April 27, 2020 Ayman Bekdash, for the protester. Christopher J. Robbins, Esq.,  Department of the Navy, 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 Protester is not an interested party to challenge the terms of the solicitation when, even if the protest is sustained, the protester would be ineligible for award under the remaining terms of the solicitation. DECISION DGCI Corporation, of McLean, Virginia, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. N62470-20-R-4001, issued by the Department of the Navy, for design-build construction services at Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily, Italy.  The protester argues that the solicitation unduly restricts competition by requiring prime contractors to have a specialized certification to perform the work, and that the agency’s basis for evaluation is flawed. We dismiss the protest because the protester is not an interested party. On January 16, 2020, the Navy issued the solicitation under the two-phase design-build provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 36.3, for construction services at the fleet maintenance facility on Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily, Italy.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFP at 4.  The RFP contemplates the award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the government, considering technical and price evaluation factors, using a tradeoff selection process.  Id.  Under phase one of the competition, the agency will evaluate offerors on three factors:  technical approach; corporate experience; and past performance.  Id. at 11.  The agency will then select the most highly qualified offerors to submit phase two proposals.  Id. at 4.  In phase two, the agency will evaluate proposals against three factors:  safety; technical solution; and price.  Id. at 11-12.  After completing the phase two evaluations, the solicitation advised that the agency would make its best-value award decision based on its consideration of an offeror’s corporate experience, past performance, technical solution, and price.[1]  Id. at 12.  The corporate experience and technical solution factors are of equal importance, and when combined, are of equal importance to the past performance factor; the combined non-price factors are approximately equal to price.  Id.  The subject of DGCI’s challenge is the solicitation’s inclusion of a Societa’ Organismi d’Attestazione (SOA) certification requirement for prime contractors.  Id. at 7-8.  An SOA certification evidences compliance with Italian law regarding the qualifications of companies competing for public works contracts, and demonstrates the existence of the technical and financial capacity required for the award of public works contracts in Italy.  Contracting Officer’s Statement/Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 16-19.  Offerors are required to demonstrate compliance with the SOA certification in their phase two proposals.  RFP at 7. In addition, the solicitation requires offerors to meet other specialized criteria due to “the unique nature of this project, which includes construction of secure areas requiring specific personnel and contractor clearance levels and construction on military installations in Italy imposing specific host nation requirements.”  COS/MOL at 5.  For example, the RFP is limited to United States prime companies consisting of United States citizens with at least a final security clearance adjudicated at a level of “secret.”  RFP at 7.  In addition, and relevant to our decision here, in order to receive the technical specifications and drawings necessary to complete phase two proposals, the solicitation requires offerors to have both a Department of Defense facility security clearance, and the capability to safeguard documents classified for purposes of national security as secret.  Id. at 5-6.  By the phase one proposal due date, offerors are required to submit to the agency information, among other things, confirming the address of their cleared facility and a list of cleared contractor personnel proposed to work on the contract.  Id.