Midnight Sun-Centennial Sunnliaq JV, LLC (W912HN-20-R-4002)

B-420583.4 May 11, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Midnight Sun-Centennial Sunnliaq JV, LLC, of Anchorage, Alaska, a small business, protests the award of a contract to MVL USA Inc., of Lansing, Michigan, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HN20R4002, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for design-build construction services related to Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The protester contends that the Corps misevaluated both firms' proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety. Decision Matter of: Midnight Sun-Centennial Sunnliaq JV, LLC File: B-420583.4 Date: May 11, 2023 Jonathan A. DeMella, Esq., Kate Kennedy, Esq., and Matthew C. Gurr, Esq., Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, for the protester. Joseph L. Cohen, Esq., P. Sean Milani-nia, Esq., Dirk D. Haire, Esq., and David Timm, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for MVL USA Inc., the intervenor. Phillip T. Paradise, Esq., Katherine D. Denzel, Esq., Nelson J. VanEck, Esq., and Ashley L. Henson, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency misevaluated protester’s and awardee’s proposals is denied where the record shows the evaluations were reasonable and consistent with the RFP criteria. 2. Protest that agency unreasonably selected awardee’s proposal for award is denied where the source selection authority recognized protester’s advantage under one evaluation factor and its significantly lower price, and reasonably determined that awardee’s superiority in another evaluation factor would provide sufficient benefit to the agency to justify its higher evaluated price. DECISION Midnight Sun-Centennial Sunnliaq JV, LLC, of Anchorage, Alaska, a small business, protests the award of a contract to MVL USA Inc., of Lansing, Michigan, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HN20R4002, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for design-build construction services related to Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The protester contends that the Corps misevaluated both firms’ proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued September 9, 2020, instituted a two-phase design-build procurement under which offerors were to submit proposals to provide general construction services for three separate indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity single-award task order contracts, one each for Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Fort Stewart, Georgia; and Fort Gordon, Georgia.[1] The contract at issue here, for Fort Bragg, was set aside for small businesses. The RFP assigned the Fort Bragg contract a capacity of $49 million. The two-phase procurement process provided that proposals would be evaluated first under two factors: past performance and design experience. AR, Tab 3d, RFP amend. 3 at 16. The second phase evaluation added two more factors: technical approach and pricing. Id. at 18-19. In selecting the best value proposal, the technical approach factor would be less important than past performance, but more important than design experience. Id. at 19-20. The non-price factors, when combined, would be significantly more important than price. Id. at 19. The technical approach evaluation was to be based on what the RFP described as a “quantitative proposal for the ‘sample/seed project” task order. Id. at 17. The project was for modernization of a combat readiness training facility at Ft. Stewart, Georgia, consisting of a pre-engineered metal building of approximately 9,600 square feet. AR, Tab 3c, RFP amend. 2 at 2; Tab 3e, Cover Letter to RFP amend. 3 at 13-14. Proposals would be evaluated “on the technical approach in determining a price proposal utilizing the applicable Construction Specification Institute (CSI) numbers and appropriate quantities from R.S. Means,”[2] and on “how well they understand the required application of the proposed coefficient and mark-ups as they apply to the SEED/SAMPLE project(s).” AR, Tab 3d, RFP amend. 3 at 17. Additionally, the Corps would “evaluate the Offeror’s overall quantitative approach for logic and reasonability,” and “how well defined and clear their supported approach to the SEED/SAMPLE project(s) is conducted.” Id. The evaluation would result in an adjectival rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable, and would also assess the level of associated risk: low, moderate, high, or unacceptable. Id. at 18‑19.