DCR Services & Construction, Inc. (N69450-20-R-0012)

B-420485.3 Sep 27, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DCR Services & Construction, Inc., a small business of Detroit, Michigan, requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs associated with filing and pursuing its bid protest. In its protest, DCR challenged the agency's failure to award it a contract under solicitation No. N69450-20-R-0012, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command, for design-build and design-bid-build construction for naval operations in the Jacksonville, Mayport, and Orlando areas. DCR argues that its protest was clearly meritorious, and the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action. We deny the request. 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: DCR Services & Construction, Inc.--Costs File: B-420485.3 Date: September 27, 2023 Bret S. Wacker, Esq., Clark Hill PLC, for the protester. Javier E. Gonzalez, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for recommendation that agency reimburse the protester’s costs associated with filing and pursuing its bid protest is denied where, although the agency delayed taking prompt corrective action, the protest allegations were not clearly meritorious. DECISION DCR Services & Construction, Inc., a small business of Detroit, Michigan, requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs associated with filing and pursuing its bid protest. In its protest, DCR challenged the agency’s failure to award it a contract under solicitation No. N69450-20-R-0012, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command, for design-build and design-bid-build construction for naval operations in the Jacksonville, Mayport, and Orlando areas. DCR argues that its protest was clearly meritorious, and the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action. We deny the request. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on May 7, 2020, established that the procurement was set aside for competition among historically underutilized business zone small businesses in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 6.205, and would be conducted using the negotiated contract procedures of FAR part 15. Agency Report (AR)[1], Tab 5a, Solicitation at 1, 19. The solicitation sought proposals for the award of “approximately five” fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts, as well as proposals for the first project for which a task order would be issued under the awarded contracts. Id. at 8-9. The solicitation stated that each contract would be for a period of five years or an aggregate maximum value of $99 million, whichever occurred first. Id. at 9. The procurement was divided into two phases, and only offerors invited to participate in phase two were permitted to submit a phase two proposal. Id. at 6. The solicitation stated that the agency would evaluate price and the following non-price factors: technical approach, experience, safety, past performance, technical solution, and energy and sustainable design. Id. at 10. The solicitation stated that all non-price factors, excluding past performance, were of equal importance; when combined, these non-price factors were equally important to past performance; and the non-price factors and past performance combined were equally important to price. Id. Regarding the evaluation of price, the solicitation stated as follows: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Total price consists of the basic requirements and any option items. Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price: (i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP. (ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the [independent government estimate (IGE)]. (iii) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information. (iv) Comparison of market survey results. Id. at 17. The solicitation did not provide for a price realism evaluation. The agency received 34 proposals, included 15 offerors in phase two of the procurement, conducted two rounds of discussions, and received final proposal revisions. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2-3; see AR, Tab 4h, Business Clearance Memorandum. Based on the final evaluation results, 10 of the 15 proposals received an overall non-price evaluation rating of acceptable with a past performance rating of satisfactory confidence, including DCR.[2] Id. at 12. The evaluators concluded that “the best value is represented by the five (5) lowest price offerors that received an overall non-cost/price rating of Acceptable with Satisfactory Confidence.” Id.