Fisher Sand & Gravel Company (W9126G20R0087)

B-419238 Jan 07, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Fisher Sand & Gravel Company, of Dickinson, North Dakota, protests the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers' award of a task order to Southwest Valley Constructors Company (SWVC), pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W9126G20R0087, for the design and construction of approximately 13 miles of border barrier in Laredo, Texas. Fisher protests the agency's evaluation of Fisher's proposal under the nonprice evaluation factors, and asserts that the agency failed to reasonably perform and/or document its best-value tradeoff determination. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. 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:  Fisher Sand & Gravel Company File:  B-419238 Date:  January 7, 2021 Scott R. Sleight, Esq., and Ellie Perka, Esq., Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC, for the protester. Grant H. Willis, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and Robin A. Overby, Esq., Jones Day, for Southwest Valley Constructors Company, the intervenor. Alexandria P. Tramel, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that technical evaluation was unreasonable because the ratings assigned differed from ratings assigned by different evaluators under a different solicitation fails to state a valid basis for protest. 2.  Protest challenging agency’s best-value tradeoff determination is denied where the determination was reasonable, consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and adequately documented. DECISION   Fisher Sand & Gravel Company, of Dickinson, North Dakota, protests the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers’ award of a task order to Southwest Valley Constructors Company (SWVC), pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W9126G20R0087, for the design and construction of approximately 13 miles of border barrier in Laredo, Texas.[1]  Fisher protests the agency’s evaluation of Fisher’s proposal under the non-price evaluation factors, and asserts that the agency failed to reasonably perform and/or document its best-value tradeoff determination. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part.  BACKGROUND On July 31, 2020, the agency issued the solicitation to “all Eastern MATOC [multiple- award task-order contract] holders.”[2]  AR, Tab 1, Contracting Officer’s Statement at 1.  The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price design-build task order, and provided that award would be based on a best-value tradeoff between the following evaluation factors:  risk mitigation plan;[3] management plan;[4] small business participation;[5] and price.  AR, Tab 3, RFP at 18.  The solicitation provided that the risk mitigation and management plan evaluation factors were of equal importance; the small business participation factor was the least important; and the non-price factors combined were approximately equal in importance to price.  Id. On or before the August 28, 2020 closing date, proposals were submitted by six offerors, including Fisher and SWVC.  Thereafter, the proposals were evaluated by the agency’s source selection evaluation board (SSEB) and source selection advisory council (SSAC).  The final ratings, as reflected in the SSAC’s report to the source selection authority (SSA), were as follows.[6]      Risk Mitigation Plan Management Plan Small Business Participation Price Fisher Acceptable Acceptable Good $175,000,000 SWVC Good Good Acceptable $208,550,000   AR, Tab 11, SSAC Report at 26. In its report, the SSAC summarized and compared Fisher’s and SWVC’s proposals, stating, among other things, that:  Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. (Fisher) has the lowest priced proposal, $175,000,000, and Southwest Valley Constructors Co. (SWVC) has the most highly ranked technical proposal, but their price proposal is $33,550,000 ($208,550,000) more than Fisher’s.  The Technical Factors 1 & 2 are of equal importance and more important than Factor 3 [small business participation] . . . .  The narrative SWVC provided in Factor 1 [risk mitigation] significantly exceeds the other Offerors. . .