John C. Grimberg Company, Inc. (47PD0121R0001)

B-419629,B-419629.2 May 25, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights John C. Grimberg Co., Inc., of Rockville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Turner Construction Company, of Baltimore, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 47PD0121R0001, issued by the General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, for the Social Security Administration Perimeter East Building renovation and upgrades construction project. The protester primarily alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and disparately evaluated the awardee's 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:  John C. Grimberg Company, Inc. File:  B-419629; B-419629.2 Date:  May 25, 2021 Herman M. Braude, Esq., Braude Law Group, P.C., for the protester. C. Peter Dungan, Esq., Roger Abbott, Esq., Jarrod Carman, Esq., and Jeremy Scholtes, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for the intervenor. Robert Notigan, Esq., and Alexis N. Webster, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Christine Milne, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s prior experience is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement regulations. DECISION   John C. Grimberg Co., Inc., of Rockville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Turner Construction Company, of Baltimore, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 47PD0121R0001, issued by the General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, for the Social Security Administration Perimeter East Building renovation and upgrades construction project.  The protester primarily alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and disparately evaluated the awardee’s proposal.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on October 6, 2020, anticipated the award of a fixed-price contract for the renovation of approximately 90,000 square feet of space in the Social Security Administration’s Perimeter East Building in Woodlawn, Maryland.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 1, RFP Agreement at 4.  The building was originally constructed to serve as the main data center for the agency, but this function has moved out of the building and its floors will be converted to modernized office space.  Id.  Renovations include improvements to tenant spaces; improvements to the cafeteria kitchen and serving area; construction of two new exterior stair tower structures; smoke control system upgrades; new heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment; and alternate mechanical systems infrastructure for the entire building.  Id.  Renovations would also include removal of hazardous materials.  Id.  The contract will be performed over a base period of 18 months and one option period.  AR, exh. 4, Source Selection Plan at 5. Award was to be made to the firm whose offer represented the best value to the government, considering price and five non-price factors:  project management and staffing plan; prior experience on relevant projects; past performance on relevant projects; small business subcontracting plan; and project labor agreement.  AR, exh. 1A, RFP at 24.  When combined, the non-price factors were significantly more important than price.  Id.  The only factor at issue here is the prior experience on relevant projects factor. The solicitation provided that, with respect to the prior experience on relevant projects factor, the agency would evaluate the breadth, depth, and relevance of an offeror’s prior experience in performing projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the project at issue here.  Id. at 27.  As discussed below, the solicitation defined relevant projects as those meeting various characteristics.  Id. Offerors were required to provide up to three projects performed within the last five years where the contractor performed as the prime contractor and the projects were similar in nature to this solicitation.  Id. at 27-28.  “Similar” was defined as “projects comparable to the subject project in terms of scope, magnitude, and complexity.”  Id. at 27.  The minimum standard for this factor would be met when the offeror had documented experience with three relevant projects, at least 75 percent complete within the past five years; satisfactorily demonstrated its knowledge and experience comparable to this project; and documented its ability to deliver the completed projects within a fixed schedule and within the prescribed budget.  Id.