ARTEK Construction (W912GB-20-R-0006)

B-418657,B-418657.2 Jul 17, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Artek Construction Company (Artek), of Adana, Turkey, protests its exclusion from phase two of a two-phase design-build procurement conducted under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912GB20R0006 issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Europe District, for construction, renovation and repair of general building projects in Turkey. Artek contends that the agency's evaluation of its phase I proposal under the management approach factor was unreasonable and inconsistent with the solicitation. Alternatively, the protester asserts that the concerns identified by the agency were relatively minor, which the agency should have resolved through clarifications with the protester, and that the evaluation findings reflected unequal treatment. According to the protester, but for these errors, its proposal would have been selected for the phase II competition. 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:  Artek Construction Company File:  B-418657; B-418657.2 Date:  July 17, 2020 Thomas O. Mason, Esq., and Joseph R. Berger, Esq., Thompson Hine LLP, for the protester. Katherine D. Denzel, Esq., Leslie M. Reed, Esq., and Herbet J. Aldridge, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation of protester’s proposal under solicitation’s management approach factor is denied where the evaluations and down-select decisions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.  DECISION   Artek Construction Company (Artek), of Adana, Turkey, protests its exclusion from phase two of a two-phase design-build procurement conducted under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912GB20R0006 issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Europe District, for construction, renovation and repair of general building projects in Turkey.  Artek contends that the agency’s evaluation of its phase I proposal under the management approach factor was unreasonable and inconsistent with the solicitation.  Alternatively, the protester asserts that the concerns identified by the agency were relatively minor, which the agency should have resolved through clarifications with the protester, and that the evaluation findings reflected unequal treatment.  According to the protester, but for these errors, its proposal would have been selected for the phase II competition. We deny the protest. On November 21, 2019, the Corps issued the RFP in accordance with the two-phase design-build procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 36.3, for the award of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ), multiple-award task order contracts (MATOCs).  RFP at 25, 32.[1]  The RFP, which was amended three times, sought proposals for design-build and design-bid-build construction services for new facilities, and real property repair and maintenance in support of defense operations in Turkey.  Id. at 32.  The RFP stated that the agency intends to award a target of five IDIQ contracts followed by fixed-price task orders during the period of performance.  Id. at 32, 47.  The maximum dollar value for all task orders was $49.95 million.  Id. at 25. The RFP included seven attachments.  RFP at 28.  As amended, attachment 1 of the RFP is identified as the “Specifications Binder.”  Id. amend. 0001, attach. 1, Specifications Binder at 228-352.[2]  The specifications binder included specification 01 45 05, entitled “Contractor Personnel Requirements (NAU)”[3] which identified the various contractor personnel required to successfully perform the solicited construction services.  Id. at 329-336.  Among other things, specification 01 45 05 identified the contractor personnel required to be on-site, including:  (1) the site superintendent--the highest level supervisor to whom all on site personnel report, and the manager responsible for all construction activities at the site, including quality and production, id. at 330; (2) the construction quality control system manager (CQCSM)--who is responsible for management of construction quality control, has the authority to act in all construction quality control matters and reports to the superintendent, id. at 331; and (3) the site safety and health officer (SSHO)--who conducts safety and health inspections, ensures subcontractor compliance with safety and health requirements, is a member of the quality control organization, and reports directly to a senior project (or corporate) official.  Id.