Midnight Sun-Centennial Kirratchiaq JV, LLC (FA441821R0001)

B-419934,B-419934.2,B-419934.3 Oct 04, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Midnight Sun-Centennial Kirratchiaq JV, LLC (MSCK), an 8(a) small business of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to Defender Contracting & Construction Services (DCCS), an 8(a) small business of Kansas City, Missouri, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4418-21-R-0001. The Department of the Air Force issued the RFP for the Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) contract. The agency anticipated creating a single-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract at Joint Base Charleston (JBC). The protester argues that the agency unreasonably failed to conduct discussions with it. MSCK also argues that the award to DCCS was improper because the agency's price realism evaluation and past performance evaluations were unreasonable. 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:  Midnight Sun-Centennial Kirratchiaq JV, LLC File:  B-419934; B-419934.2; B-419934.3 Date:  October 4, 2021 Robert M. Moore, Esq., Matthew C. Long, Esq., and Rachel E. Bauer, Esq., Moore & Lee, LLP, for the protester. Nilson M. Goes, for Defender Contracting & Construction, the intervenor. Lieutenant Colonel Christopher M. Wu, and Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Where the solicitation fails to incorporate one of two mandatory clauses to indicate whether award was to be made with or without discussions, the agency’s decision to award on the basis of initial proposals was unobjectionable. 2.  Protest challenging an agency’s past performance evaluation is denied where the agency’s evaluation is reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors. DECISION Midnight Sun-Centennial Kirratchiaq JV, LLC (MSCK),[1] an 8(a) small business of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to Defender Contracting & Construction Services (DCCS), an 8(a) small business of Kansas City, Missouri, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4418-21-R-0001.  The Department of the Air Force issued the RFP for the Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) contract.  The agency anticipated creating a single-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract at Joint Base Charleston (JBC).[2]  The protester argues that the agency unreasonably failed to conduct discussions with it.  MSCK also argues that the award to DCCS was improper because the agency’s price realism evaluation and past performance evaluations were unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The SABER IDIQ is a single award, fixed-price IDIQ contract that the Air Force will use to accomplish a wide variety of “non-complex, multi-discipline, minor construction, maintenance, repair and minimal design” projects on real property at JBC and its outlying areas, such as the Nuclear Power Training Unit (NPTU) and the Navy Brig, Goose Creek, South Carolina.  AR, Tab 31, RFP amend. 1 at 2.  The Air Force will issue task orders under the IDIQ contract for projects valued between $2,000 and $1 million and the contractor will provide labor, equipment, tools, materials, and project supervision needed to complete the work.  Id.  The solicitation advises that the total value of the IDIQ contract will not exceed $77 million.  AR, Tab 4, RFP at 1.  On December 7, 2020, the agency issued the solicitation as an 8(a) small business set‑aside under FAR part 15, for negotiated contracts.[3]  Id.  The solicitation contemplates a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods for the IDIQ contract; the solicitation also indicates that performance periods for individual projects will be specified in the individual task orders.  Id.  The RFP provides for award to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value considering three evaluation factors:  past performance, technical, and price.[4]  AR, Tab 30, Evaluation Factors at 1.  The past performance factor is significantly more important than the price or technical factors.  Id.  The RFP specifies that if the lowest‑priced, technically acceptable offer receives a rating of substantial confidence under the past performance factor, the agency will make award to that offeror without further consideration of other offers.  Id.