Garco-WEMCO, JV (W912DW21R0028)

B-420317 Jan 24, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Garco-WEMCO, JV (Garco), a small business joint venture of Spokane, Washington, protests the award of a contract to REEL COH, Inc. (REEL), of Boisbriand, Quebec, Canada, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912DW21R0028, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), for the Libby Dam intake crane replacement project in Libby, Montana. The protester contends the agency's evaluation of Garco's proposal was unreasonable and did not comport with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. 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:  Garco-WEMCO, JV File:  B-420317 Date:  January 24, 2022 Andrew P. Hallowell, Esq., Pargament & Hallowell, PLLC, for the protester. Franklin C. Turner, Esq., Alexander W. Major, Esq., Cara A. Wulf, Esq., and Ethan M. Brown, Esq., McCarter & English, LLP, for REEL COH, Inc., the intervenor. Janis R. Millete, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s technical and past performance evaluations are denied where the evaluations were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Garco-WEMCO, JV (Garco), a small business joint venture of Spokane, Washington, protests the award of a contract to REEL COH, Inc. (REEL), of Boisbriand, Quebec, Canada, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912DW21R0028, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), for the Libby Dam intake crane replacement project in Libby, Montana.  The protester contends the agency’s evaluation of Garco’s proposal was unreasonable and did not comport with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on May 26, 2021, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, seeking the replacement of an intake gantry crane at the Libby Dam in Libby, Montana.  Agency Report (AR), Tab B, RFP  at 7.[1]  Specifically, the agency sought contractor support for the removal of an existing gantry crane and related systems, as well as the design, fabrication, transportation, and installation of a new intake gantry crane.  Id. at 10.  The RFP anticipated the award of a fixed-price contract with a 2-year period of performance.  Id. at 4, 16. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three non-price factors:  (1) work plan; (2) past performance; and (3) experience.[2]  Id. at 21.  USACE would evaluate a proposed work plan for “how well the plan demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of the scope of work, including challenges inherent in the work, and a detailed plan addressing issues specific to this project.”  Id. at 29.  Under this factor, the agency would also consider how well a work plan addressed essential tasks, schedules, and the sequencing of tasks, as well as the feasibility of the plan for managing and coordinating tasks, and the degree to which the plan identifies and manages risks.  Id.  Past performance would be evaluated for recency, relevancy, and quality.  Id. at 30.  Recent performance included work completed within seven years of the proposal due date.  Id.  USACE would assess relevancy by considering “the extent to which the projects are comparable in size, scope, and complexity” to the instant requirement and would assign one of four adjectival ratings:  very relevant; relevant; somewhat relevant; and not relevant.  Id.  For quality, USACE would “determine how well the Offeror performed on the recent and relevant projects.”  Id.  Finally, under the experience factor, the agency would consider “the extent to which the Offeror’s past projects are relevant and similar in type, size, scope, and complexity to the solicited project[.]”  Id. For both the work plan and experience factors, USACE utilized a combined technical/risk adjectival rating scheme, with the following possible combinations:  outstanding; good; acceptable; marginal; or unacceptable.[3]  Id. at 28.  The RFP further provided that the “combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.”  Id.  For the past performance factor, USACE would assign a performance confidence assessment rating--considering recency, relevancy, and quality--with five possible ratings:  substantial confidence; satisfactory confidence; neutral confidence; limited confidence; and no confidence.  Id.