KMK Construction, Inc. (W912WJ20R0002)

B-418639 Jul 09, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Benaka Inc., a small business of New Brunswick, New Jersey, protests the decision by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps) to eliminate Benaka's proposal from the competition pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W912WJ20R0002, to provide design-build services in support of the Corps's New England district mission. Benaka asserts that the agency unreasonably determined that part of its proposal exceeded applicable page limitations, and therefore improperly evaluated Benaka's technical proposal. The protester also challenges various other aspects of the agency's evaluation. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Benaka Inc. File:  B-418639 Date:  July 9, 2020 Lawrence M. Prosen, Esq., Gunjan R. Talati, Esq., Jamie C. Lipsitz, Esq., Benjamin L. Williams, Esq., and Caitlin E. Trevillyan, Esq., Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, for the protester. Maureen A. McAndrew, Esq., Jenna Gustafson, Esq., Paul Blenz, Esq., and Patsy Falcigno, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that certain required information in proposal was in pages that exceeded the solicitation’s page limits, and the agency’s decision not to consider that information was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s terms. 2.  Protester is not an interested party to challenge other aspects of the evaluation where its proposal was reasonably evaluated as technically unacceptable. DECISION Benaka Inc., a small business of New Brunswick, New Jersey, protests the decision by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps) to eliminate Benaka’s proposal from the competition pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W912WJ20R0002, to provide design-build services in support of the Corps’s New England district mission.  Benaka asserts that the agency unreasonably determined that part of its proposal exceeded applicable page limitations, and therefore improperly evaluated Benaka’s technical proposal.  The protester also challenges various other aspects of the agency’s evaluation.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND On October 11, 2019, the agency issued the RFP as a total small business set-aside, seeking to establish multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts for design-build construction services throughout 12 states and the District of Columbia.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFP at 2-3, 31, 60.  The solicitation contemplated a two-phase procurement which would result in awards to four offerors on a best-value tradeoff basis.  Id. at 3, 15.  The solicitation provided that phase 1 would be evaluated considering the following evaluation factors, in descending order of importance:  (1) experience; (2) technical and management approach; and (3) past performance.  Id. at 15-16.  As relevant here, the solicitation required offerors to submit a single volume, referred to as phase 1/volume 1, addressing the above-listed phase 1 evaluation factors, which was not to exceed 35 pages.  Id. at 8.  Directly beneath the table setting forth the page limits for the various proposal volumes for the two phases, the solicitation included the following, in bold: NOTE: All pages, including cover letters, Table of Contents pages, tables, illustrations, and appendices will be counted in the page calculation; with the exception of Past Performance Questionnaires. Past performance questionnaires WILL NOT count against the page limit. Pages that exceed the above noted page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed, not read, and will not be evaluated by the Government. Id. (emphasis omitted).  On November 1, 2019, the Corps issued amendment 0001, which answered questions from offerors concerning the solicitation.  AR, Exh. 2, RFP Amendment 0001 at 1.  An offeror asked whether page breaks, including blank pages meant to separate the sections of a proposal volume, would count against the page limit.  Id.