J.E. McAmis, Inc. (W912EP21R0024)

B-420310 Jan 19, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights J.E. McAmis, Inc., of Chico, California, protests the award of a contract to Phillips & Jordan, Inc., of Knoxville, Tennessee, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912EP21R0024, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers, for the Central Everglades Planning Project. J.E. McAmis asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable. 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:  J.E. McAmis, Inc. File:  B-420310 Date:  January 19, 2022 Joseph Lawrence, Esq., and Steven K. Johnson, Esq., Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A., for the protester. Robert J. Symon, Esq., Sabah K. Petrov, Esq., Nathaniel Greeson, Esq., and Patrick Quigley, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for Phillips & Jordan, Inc., the intervenor. Deena G. Braunstein, Esq., James Zaleski, Esq., Amber Jackson, Esq., and Susan E. Symanski, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency unreasonably rated proposal as unacceptable is denied where protester failed to follow solicitation instructions to provide basis for timeframes for proposed work. DECISION J.E. McAmis, Inc., of Chico, California, protests the award of a contract to Phillips & Jordan, Inc., of Knoxville, Tennessee, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912EP21R0024, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers, for the Central Everglades Planning Project.  J.E. McAmis asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on July 16, 2021, for a contractor to construct approximately 7.3 miles of canals and a maintenance road with benches between the canals in the Everglades agricultural area of Florida.  The RFP provided that the contract would be awarded on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors:  technical merit (with separate elements for technical approach plan, and construction schedule); past performance; small business participation (with separate elements for small business participation proposal and past utilization of small business concerns); and price.  Agency Report (AR), Tab B, RFP Vol. I at 13-14.  Individual elements were not separately rated, but were considerations in the factor rating.  Id. at 13.  The solicitation provided that to be considered for award, a rating of no less than acceptable was required for the technical merit and small business participation factors.[1]  Id. Five offerors submitted proposals in response to the solicitation.  The technical merit and past performance factors were evaluated by the source selection evaluation board (SSEB), the small business participation factor was reviewed by the agency’s deputy for small business, and the price proposals were reviewed by the cost team.  The source selection official reviewed the evaluation results and conducted the best-value tradeoff.  The SSEB rated J.E. McAmis’s proposal unacceptable under the technical merit factor, and as a result its proposal was not considered in the best-value tradeoff.  AR, Tab A, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 6.  J.E. McAmis protests that the agency unreasonably rated its proposal unacceptable under the technical merit factor.  As discussed below, we find that the proposal of J.E. McAmis was properly rated unacceptable and eliminated from the competition. DISCUSSION With respect to the technical merit factor, offerors were required to address two elements:  technical approach plan and construction schedule.  For the technical approach plan, as relevant to this protest, offerors were required to provide a narrative that addressed the following items:  1. Provide a list of equipment planned to be utilized to blast, excavate, remove, transport, crush, process, place, and stockpile material. 2. Provide typical production rates for all listed equipment planned to be utilized to blast, excavate, remove, transport, crush, process, place, and stockpile material. 3. Present the sequence of activities which represent work through the entire project from mobilization to demobilization.  *  *  *    10. Provide basis for timeframes for required work items proposed in Element 2, Construction Schedule, including all assumed contingencies (i.e.