AnderCorp, LLC (1605AE-21-R-00014)

B-419984 Oct 14, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Anderson Corporation, also of Gulfport, Mississippi, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1605AE-21-R-00014, issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) for construction services. This protest concerns an agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal under an evaluation factor considering prior experience and a separate factor considering past performance. It is undisputed that the protesting firm has no prior experience; AnderCorp is a recently formed company. Protest at 3. The issue is whether it was proper for the agency to evaluate the protester's proposal negatively, rather than neutrally, under the solicitation's experience factor, due to the firm's lack of experience. We conclude that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and therefore 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:  AnderCorp, LLC File:  B-419984 Date:  October 14, 2021 Samuel C. Kelly, Esq., Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC, for the protester. Douglas Yokomizo, Esq., Nida & Romyn, P.C., for Roy Anderson Corporation, the intervenor. Jonathan Pomerance, Esq., and José Otero, Esq., Department of Labor, for the agency. Raymond Richards, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the reasonableness of a technical evaluation is denied:  The agency reasonably rated the protester’s proposal as unacceptable under an evaluation factor considering prior experience where the protester did not submit any projects demonstrating prior experience as required by the solicitation. DECISION AnderCorp, LLC, of Gulfport, Mississippi, protests the award of a contract to Roy Anderson Corporation, also of Gulfport, Mississippi, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1605AE‑21‑R‑00014, issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) for construction services.  This protest concerns an agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal under an evaluation factor considering prior experience and a separate factor considering past performance.  It is undisputed that the protesting firm has no prior experience; AnderCorp is a recently formed company.[1]  Protest at 3.  The issue is whether it was proper for the agency to evaluate the protester’s proposal negatively, rather than neutrally, under the solicitation’s experience factor, due to the firm’s lack of experience.  We conclude that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and therefore we deny the protest. BACKGROUND DOL issued the solicitation on April 29, 2021, under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, Contracting by Negotiation.  Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFP at 1, 72.[2]  The solicitation sought proposals for construction services for the agency’s redevelopment project at the Gulfport Job Corps Center.  Id. at 1.  The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed‑price contract to the offeror submitting the lowest‑priced, technically acceptable proposal, considering the following non‑price evaluation factors:  (1) project experience; (2) past performance; (3) technical approach and risk; (4) management and organization; (5) safety program; and (6) quality control program.  Id. at 82‑84.  The RFP contained the following instructions to offerors regarding the project experience factor: Submit three (3) examples of relevant projects, either substantially complete or completed within the past five years, demonstrating the Offeror’s technical capabilities to perform the Project.  If the offeror submits more than the required number of project examples, DOL will evaluate only the stated number of projects, in the order presented in the Offeror’s submittal. Id. at 78.  The RFP advised that under the project experience factor the agency would “evaluate the Offeror’s technical project experience in executing relevant projects.”  Id. at 83.  The RFP also advised that the agency would evaluate “the Offeror’s record of project completion and close‑out, its approach to problem and change resolution, and its responsiveness to issues and problems.”  Id.  As for the past performance factor, the RFP required offerors to submit information about projects they have previously performed so the agency could evaluate the offeror’s relevant past performance.  Id. at 79.  The RFP stated that “[a]n [o]fferor who has no record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will receive a neutral rating for this factor.”  Id.  Proposals were due on June 1.  Id. at 1. The agency received five proposals in response to the solicitation.