ACC Construction Company, Inc. (W912HN20R4001)

B-420801 Sep 02, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ACC Construction Company, Inc. (ACC Construction), of Augusta, Georgia, protests its exclusion from phase two of the competition conducted under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HN-20-R-4001, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers for construction services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and improperly eliminated the proposal from the next phase of the competition. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: ACC Construction Company, Inc. File: B-420801 Date: September 2, 2022 Joey Floyd, Esq., and Henry Wall, Esq., Bruner, Powell, Wall & Mullins, LLC, for the protester. Ashley Henson, Esq., Phillip Paradise, Esq., and Katherine D. Denzel, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Michael P. Price, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal under multiple evaluation factors is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION ACC Construction Company, Inc. (ACC Construction), of Augusta, Georgia, protests its exclusion from phase two of the competition conducted under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HN-20-R-4001, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers for construction services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and improperly eliminated the proposal from the next phase of the competition. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On September 2, 2020, the Army issued the RFP under the two-phase design-build provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.3, seeking proposals for general construction services within the three-state region of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Conformed Solicitation (RFP) at 1, 8. The RFP contemplated the award of up to five multiple-award task order contracts with a base period of 2-years and three 1‑year options. Id. at 1. The RFP established a two-phase procurement and informed offerors that the Army would use a best-value tradeoff in making an award decision. Id. The RFP further advised that the agency would consider two non-price evaluation factors in phase one of the procurement: (1) past performance and (2) design experience. Id. at 15. The past performance factor was to be evaluated using adjectival relevancy and confidence ratings,[1] and the design experience factor would be evaluated using combined technical/risk adjectival ratings.[2] Id. at 19-22. The RFP further stated that the past performance factor was more important than the design experience factor. Id. at 22. After selecting no more than eight of the mostly qualified offerors, the agency was to evaluate technical capability and price in phase two of the procurement. Id. at 9. As relevant to this protest, under the past performance factor the RFP instructed offerors to demonstrate a record of construction performance and experience in recent and relevant projects. Id. at 17. To that end, the RFP required offerors to submit Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) or Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) for each relevant project submitted.[3] Id. The RFP informed offerors that relevant projects were those similar in size, scope, and complexity to the anticipated project being solicited, and went on to provide several examples of different varieties of relevant projects. Id. at 18-19. The RFP advised that the Army’s evaluation under the past performance factor would result in an assessment of the agency’s confidence in the ability of offerors to meet the solicitation’s requirements. Id. at 19. Further, the RFP provided that an offeror “may” increase the agency’s level of confidence if it could demonstrate that it had successfully performed a wide-variety of work, as described in the RFP’s instructions. An offeror could also potentially increase the agency’s level of confidence by demonstrating that it had prior experience working with its proposed design firm. Id. The Army received 29 proposals by the phase one closing date of October 14. AR, Tab 1, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. In addition to finding all of ACC Construction’s submitted past performance projects to be very relevant, the agency’s source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated the protester’s phase one proposal as follows: Past Performance Satisfactory Confidence Design Experience Good   AR, Tab 5a, SSEB Report at 12.