Caddell-Nova, JV (70Z05022RABCD0001)

B-420892,B-420892.2 Oct 20, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Caddell-Nova, A Joint Venture (Caddell), of Napa, California, protests the issuance of a task order to GWWH A Joint Venture, of Watsonville, California, under task order announcement (TOA) 70Z05022RABCD0001, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States Coast Guard, for design and construction services. The protester challenges the agency's technical evaluation and best-value tradeoff 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. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Caddell‑Nova, JV File: B‑420892; B‑420892.2 Date: October 20, 2022 Howard W. Roth, Esq., Douglas S. Oles, Esq., Jedidiah K. Blake, Esq., and Sydney M. Sullivan, Esq., Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker, LLP, for the protester. Nick R. Hoogstraten, Esq., Peckar & Abramson, PC, for GWWH A Joint Venture, the intervenor. Gina M. Sirianni, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. David A. Edelstein, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest of agency’s technical evaluation is denied where the protester has not demonstrated that the evaluation was unreasonable or that the agency evaluated proposals unequally. 2. Protest of agency’s best‑value tradeoff decision is denied where the agency considered the technical merit and price difference between proposals and made a reasonable and well‑documented determination that the awardee’s technical superiority outweighed the protester’s lower price. DECISION Caddell‑Nova, A Joint Venture (Caddell), of Napa, California, protests the issuance of a task order to GWWH A Joint Venture, of Watsonville, California, under task order announcement (TOA) 70Z05022RABCD0001, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States Coast Guard, for design and construction services. The protester challenges the agency’s technical evaluation and best‑value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. Background The agency issued the TOA on January 20, 2022, under DHS’s Nationwide Multiple Award Construction Contract II indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, for the design and construction of a Fast Response Cutter (FRC) homeport and other related facilities in Astoria, Oregon. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1‑3. The solicitation anticipated issuance of a single fixed-price, design‑build task order on a best‑value tradeoff basis, with a period of performance of 1,066 days from the date of award. Id. at 1; Protest, exh. D, TOA[1] at 4, 20‑21. The solicitation included two base work items: construction of the FRC homeport and associated dredging requirements. TOA at 3. The solicitation also included four option items: two alternative options for either a modular or permanent facility for the maintenance and weapons division (MWD), an additional floating dock with associated expanded dredging requirements, and non‑critical seawall revetment. Id. at 4. The solicitation stated that “[o]ptions that are exercised, if any, will be exercised at time of award.” Id. at 25. The solicitation provided that the agency would issue the task order on a best‑value tradeoff basis considering price and three technical factors: design and construction approach for major scope items, phasing plan, and subcontractor management. Id. at 21. Proposals would be assigned adjectival ratings for each of these technical factors, as well as an overall technical rating. Id. The possible adjectival ratings, in descending order, were superior, good, satisfactory, marginal, and unsatisfactory. Id. at 21‑22. The technical factors were of approximately equal importance, and, when combined, were approximately equal in importance to price. Id. at 19. With respect to price, the solicitation stated that the agency would evaluate the total price for the base work items and any options exercised at the time of award. TOA at 4; Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.217‑4. The agency received five timely proposals, including proposals from Caddell and GWWH. COS at 2. The agency convened a technical evaluation team (TET), which produced a report evaluating proposals on the technical factors. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 24, Non‑Price Evaluation Report at 1. On the design and construction approach factor, the TET assigned Caddell’s proposal a rating of satisfactory based on an assessment of four strengths and three weaknesses. Id. at 1‑2. On the phasing plan factor, the TET identified one strength, three weaknesses, and one significant weakness in Caddell’s proposal, and assigned a rating of marginal. Id. at 2‑4.