BB Government Services Srl (FA568219RA0001)

B-419205.3 Mar 15, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights BB Government Services Srl (BB) of Vicenza, Italy, protests the award of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) construction contracts to four other firms under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA5682-19-R-A001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for construction, design-build, and design-bid-build services at Aviano Air Base and other air bases in Italy. BB challenges the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal. 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:  BB Government Services Srl File:  B-419205.3 Date:  March 15, 2021 Kate H. Kennedy, Esq., Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, for the protester. Major Darren S. Gilkes, Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., and Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, 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 technical proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. DECISION   BB Government Services Srl (BB) of Vicenza, Italy, protests the award of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) construction contracts to four other firms under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA5682-19-R-A001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for construction, design-build, and design-bid-build services at Aviano Air Base and other air bases in Italy.  BB challenges the agency’s evaluation of its technical proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 28, 2019, the Air Force issued the RFP seeking proposals to provide construction, design-build, and design-bid-build services at Aviano and other air bases in Italy.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, RFP at 1; AR, Tab 18, Statement of Work at 3.  The RFP anticipated award of approximately six fixed-price multiple-award IDIQ construction contracts, each for a base year and four 1-year option periods.  AR, Tab 17, RFP § M at 1. The solicitation advised that the agency would evaluate proposals considering the following factors:  technical acceptability, past performance, and price.  Id. at 2.  The technical acceptability factor was to be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.  Id. at 3.  Award was to be made amongst technically acceptable offerors, based on a tradeoff between price and past performance, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15.  Id. at 1. The technical acceptability factor included three subfactors:  prior experience, management approach, and technical execution of the seed project; only the last subfactor is germane to this protest.  AR, Tab 16, RFP § L at 6-7.  The RFP described the seed project as “a real construction requirement which the [g]overnment . . . intends to award” as part of the current requirement.  Id. at 7.  The solicitation provided that under technical execution of the seed project the agency would assess offerors’s “technical understanding and approach to accomplish all work elements of the seed project.”  Id. at 7.  Offerors were instructed to address in their proposals three aspects of the seed project execution subfactor:  design validation report (DVR), schedule plan, and technical approach.  Id.  As relevant here, with respect to the DVR requirement, offerors were to submit a “narrative” report “demonstrat[ing] thorough understanding and acceptance of the [g]overnment provided design.”  AR, Tab 17, RFP § M at 4-5.  Of particular importance, the RFP provided that “[a]ctual errors/mistakes/omissions identified during the design validation must be identified in the [DVR].”  Id. at 5. The solicitation specified that the evaluation process would be conducted as a series of steps; that is, proposals had to meet the requirements of each step in order to advance to the next step in the evaluation process.  AR, Tab 17, RFP § M at 2.  The evaluation steps included:  (1) responsiveness; (2) technical acceptability; (3) price; (4) past performance; and (5) integrated assessment (best-value determination weighing price and past performance ratings).  Id.  The Air Force received twelve proposals by the November 22, 2019, solicitation deadline.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 4.  After evaluating proposals for responsiveness in step 1, the agency excluded two offerors, while the remaining ten offerors, including BB, advanced to step 2 in the evaluation process, technical acceptability.  Id.