CJW Construction, Inc. (N62473-19-R-2434)

B-418774,B-418774.2 Aug 17, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CJW Construction, Inc., a small business of Santa Ana, California, protests the evaluation of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6247319R2434, issued by Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, for the construction, renovation, and repair of waterfront facilities at various government installations located in California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably ignored information in its proposal, or alternatively, applied unstated evaluation criteria. In its supplemental protest, the protester argues that the agency inadequately documented the basis for its 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 redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  CJW Construction, Inc. File:  B-418774; B-418774.2 Date:  August 17, 2020 Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., Ian P. Patterson, Esq., Shane J. McCall, Esq., and Haley E. Claxton, Esq., Koprince Law, LLC, for the protester. Deana Jaeger, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s technical evaluation of protester’s proposal is denied where evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION CJW Construction, Inc., a small business of Santa Ana, California, protests the evaluation of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6247319R2434, issued by Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, for the construction, renovation, and repair of waterfront facilities at various government installations located in California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico.  The protester argues that the agency unreasonably ignored information in its proposal, or alternatively, applied unstated evaluation criteria.  In its supplemental protest, the protester argues that the agency inadequately documented the basis for its evaluation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On October 16, 2019, the agency issued the RFP in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 15 and 36.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 36‑37.[1]  The RFP contemplated a two-phase evaluation, resulting in the award of three to five indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity construction contracts.[2]  Id. at 109.  The RFP provided that phase one would result in a determination of the most highly qualified offerors whom the agency would then invite to submit proposals for phase two.  Id. at 36-37.  Under phase two, the agency would evaluate proposals on a best‑value tradeoff basis, considering price and other non-price related factors.  Id.  Proposals for phase one were due no later than 2:00 p.m. on November 19, 2019.  Id. at 1. The solicitation listed three factors to be evaluated under phase one:  technical approach; experience; past performance.  Id. at 39.  The RFP provided that the agency would assign proposals a rating of acceptable or unacceptable for the technical approach factor.  Id.  The RFP also provided that experience and past performance were of equal importance.[3]  Id.  Regarding experience, the RFP required offerors to provide up to five relevant construction projects that demonstrate the offeror’s “self-performed [] experience” on projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work sought under the current RFP.  RFP at 40.  In providing five relevant projects, the RFP also required offerors to satisfy a list of “[a]dditional minimum submission requirements.”  Id.