Harper Construction Company, Inc.--Reconsideration

B-419947.4 Apr 15, 2026 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Harper Construction Company, Inc., of San Diego, California, requests reconsideration of our decision in Harper Construction Company, Inc., B-419947.3, March 18, 2016, in which we denied its protest of the issuance of a task order to Clark Construction Group - California LP, of Irvine, California, by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6247325RF016, to repair five existing bachelor enlisted quarters (BEQ). Harper argues that our Office erred in denying its protest. We deny the request for reconsideration. 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: Harper Construction Company, Inc.--Reconsideration File: B-419947.4 Date: April 15, 2026 Dirk Haire, Esq., Jessica Haire, Esq., A. Michelle West, Esq., Michael J. Brewer, Esq., and Isabella S. Capanna, Esq., Burr & Forman LLP, for the requester. Kristopher M. Cronin, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Michelle Litteken, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration is denied where the requester has not shown that our prior decision contained an error of fact or law warranting reversal or modification. DECISION Harper Construction Company, Inc., of San Diego, California, requests reconsideration of our decision in Harper Construction Company, Inc., B-419947.3, March 18, 2016, in which we denied its protest of the issuance of a task order to Clark Construction Group - California LP, of Irvine, California, by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6247325RF016, to repair five existing bachelor enlisted quarters (BEQ). Harper argues that our Office erred in denying its protest. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND On July 1, 2025, under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 16.5, the Navy issued the RFP to holders of the agency's indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity multiple award construction contracts. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 401.[1] The Navy sought proposals to repair five existing BEQs at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, including converting units to new room standards and replacing deteriorated building components and outdated building systems. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFP, amend. 11 at 3. The solicitation contemplated issuance of a fixed-price task order, id. at 164, and it provided for award to be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis, considering the technical solution evaluation factor (on an acceptable or unacceptable basis) and price. RFP, amend. 2 at 116-17. As relevant here, the RFP required offerors to submit a three-page design narrative and conceptual drawings for the first floor of each BEQ. RFP at 117. The solicitation provided a project description directing offerors to “[c]omply with the current version of FC [Facilities Criteria] 4-721-10N, Navy and Marine Corps Bachelor Housing” for design, as well as the RFP's attachment G, a memo titled “Interim Department of Defense Design Standards for Unaccompanied Housing.” AR, Exh. 13, RFP attachs. at 353. Those criteria and standards established, among other things, required spaces within rooms and minimum net square footage (NSF) for those spaces. AR, Exh. 7, FC 4‑721‑10N at 57-58; AR, Exh. 13, RFP attachs. at 1404-07. In evaluating Harper's proposal, the agency concluded that the firm's technical solution was unacceptable because the floor plan for one of the proposed unit types was not large enough “to accommodate all required spaces and meet the minimum NSF” requirements. AR, Exh. 5, Revised Technical Evaluation at 220. The evaluators considered the solicitation as amended by responses to requests for information (RFI) received from potential offerors, and they noted that the agency “clarified that the kitchenette could be reduced to no less than 36 NSF, if it were practically infeasible to accommodate 40 NSF.” Id. at 222. The evaluators found that Harper's technical solution was “insufficient to realistically accommodate all required spaces, to include the bedroom, closets, bathroom, kitchenette, interior walls, interior furring and chases behind interior walls[,]” and the Navy rated Harper's proposal as technically unacceptable and ineligible for award. Id. at 220-22. On December 16, Harper filed the underlying protest, arguing that the agency should have found that Harper's proposed units met the RFP's requirements. Protest at 5-6.