Zafer Taahhut Insaat Ve Tiaret AS (W912GB21R0008)

B-420280 Jan 19, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Zafer Taahhut, Insaat Ve Tiaret AS (Zafer), of Ankara, Turkey, protests the award of a construction contract to Hatcon Insaat Taahhut Ithalat Ihracat Ltd. Sti. (Hatcon), also of Ankara, Turkey, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912GB21R0008, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), Europe District, for construction services. The protester contends that the agency conducted a flawed price evaluation, assigned unreasonable ratings to its own and the awardee's proposals, and performed a flawed best-value tradeoff analysis. 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: Zafer Taahhut Insaat Ve Tiaret AS File: B-420280 Date: January 19, 2022 Sam Z. Gdanski, Esq., Sam Zalman Gdanski PC, for the protester. Katherine D. Denzel, Esq., Matthew R. Keiser, Esq., Herbert J. Aldridge, Esq., Megan J. Tooman, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging price evaluation is denied where the agency evaluated price reasonableness in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria and where the solicitation did not require a price realism analysis. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s past performance proposal is denied where the evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, and well documented. Protester’s objections did not rise beyond disagreement with the agency’s evaluation judgments. DECISION Zafer Taahhut, Insaat Ve Tiaret AS (Zafer), of Ankara, Turkey, protests the award of a construction contract to Hatcon Insaat Taahhut Ithalat Ihracat Ltd. Sti. (Hatcon), also of Ankara, Turkey, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912GB21R0008, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), Europe District, for construction services. The protester contends that the agency conducted a flawed price evaluation, assigned unreasonable ratings to its own and the awardee’s proposals, and performed a flawed best-value tradeoff analysis. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on December 30, 2020, and subsequently amended four times, sought proposals for construction of munitions storage area facilities at Powidz Air Base in Poland. RFP at 000034. The contract will support the requirement to construct joint munitions storage area facilities to include 54 collocated earth covered magazines (ECMs) to provide munitions storage for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program, United States Army Europe, United States Air Force, and the Polish Ministry of Defense. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 1.[1] As amended, the solicitation contemplated the award of a single fixed-price construction contract, with selection of the contractor to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors: (1) past performance; (2) management plan; (3) technical approach narrative and schedule;[2] (4) national competitive bidding (NCB) plus requirements; and (5) price.[3] RFP amend. 4 at 000332. The solicitation provided that the past performance, management plan, and technical approach factors were approximately of equal importance, and when combined, were approximately equal to price. Id. at 000331. For the NCB plus requirements factor, proposals would be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Proposals rated as acceptable under the NCB plus requirements factor, would then be considered under the past performance, management plan, and technical approach factors in a best-value tradeoff analysis. Id. at 000302. Under the past performance factor, offerors were required to provide a maximum of six past or current contracts, performed within the past 6 years prior to the December 30, 2020 RFP issue date. RFP amend. 4 at 000332. In addition, the RFP required submission of completed contractor performance assessment reporting system reports or completed past performance questionnaires (PPQs) for each contract reference. RFP amend. 1 at 000295. The agency would evaluate the recency, relevancy, and quality of the past performance references. Id. Recency was defined as projects completed or substantially completed no more than six years before the December 30, 2020 RFP date of issuance. Id.