Nova Consulting, Inc. (W912EP-20-R-0030)

B-419168.3 Aug 19, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Nova Consulting, Inc., of Doral, Florida, protests the nonselection of its statement of qualifications, and the selection of Dynamic Solutions, LLC, of Knoxville, Tennessee, for negotiation of an architect-engineering services contract, pursuant to synopsis No. W912EP-20-R-0030 issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for water resource engineering services. Nova challenges the agency's evaluation of the protester's and awardee's statements of qualifications. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Nova Consulting, Inc. File:  B-419168.3 Date:  August 19, 2021 Dorn C. McGrath III, Esq., William M. Jack, Esq., and Ken M. Kanzawa, Esq., Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, for the protester. David S. Black, Esq., Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Amy L. Fuentes, Esq., and Jeremy D. Burkhart, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Dynamic Solutions, LLC, the intervenor. Adam P. Wallace, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s and awardee’s statements of qualifications submitted in a procurement for architect-engineering services is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Nova Consulting, Inc., of Doral, Florida, protests the nonselection of its statement of qualifications, and the selection of Dynamic Solutions, LLC, of Knoxville, Tennessee, for negotiation of an architect-engineering services contract, pursuant to synopsis No. W912EP-20-R-0030 issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for water resource engineering services.  Nova challenges the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s and awardee’s statements of qualifications.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The procurement was conducted pursuant to the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 1102-1104, and its implementing regulations, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.6.  Agency Report (AR), Tab B1, Synopsis.[1]  The procedures for procurements of architect-engineering requirements under the Brooks Act do not include a price competition.  Instead, the agency must select the most highly qualified firm(s), on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications, and negotiate contracts with those firms at a fair and reasonable level of compensation.  Photo Sci., Inc., B-296391, July 25, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 140 at 1-2; see FAR subpart 36.6. The synopsis, issued on April 24, 2020 and set aside for woman-owned small businesses, requested that firms submit a statement of qualifications using Standard Form (SF) 330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications, for water resources engineering services for civil works projects to support the Jacksonville, Florida district.  The selected firm would be responsible for, among other things, “preparation of studies, reports, or portions of reports, pertaining to engineering of water resources engineering and related civil works projects.”  Synopsis at 2.  The synopsis contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods, with an estimated amount per year of $2 million and a total maximum limit of $10 million.  Id. The synopsis included the following five primary evaluation factors, in descending order of importance:  specialized experience and technical competence; professional qualifications; capacity to accomplish the work; past performance; and knowledge of the locality.[2]  Synopsis at 2.  Only the first factor, specialized experience and technical competence, is relevant here.  Under this factor, the synopsis provided that “[f]irms must clearly demonstrate specialized experience and expertise in water resources engineering projects with emphasis on” the following 11 subcriteria, in descending order of importance:  hydrologic and hydraulic analyses associated with the design and performance of ecosystem restoration; flood control; water delivery; coastal navigation projects; two and three-dimensional surface water and groundwater modeling; water management operational modeling; water quality; groundwater studies; analytical/ statistical evaluation of historic data; demonstrate ability to provide expert testimony in court; and ability to perform independent technical review and expert peer review.  Id. On or before May 29, the agency received statements of qualifications from six firms, including Nova and Dynamic.  The agency conducted an evaluation and selected Nova for negotiation as the most highly qualified firm.  ...