Meltech Corporation, Inc. (HHM402-22-R-0018)

B-421064,B-421064.2 Dec 22, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Meltech Corporation, a small business of Landover, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Strongside Builders, LLC, of Chevy Chase, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HHM4022-22-R-0018, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for general construction services. The protester argues that the award to Strongside was improper because DIA unreasonably evaluated proposals under the management capability and past performance factors. 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: Meltech Corporation, Inc. File: B-421064; B-421064.2 Date: December 22, 2022 Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., and Laurel A. Hockey, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for the protester. Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., and Eric A. Valle, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for Strongside Builders, LLC, the intervenor. Lieutenant Colonel Jason R. Hull, Max D. Houtz, Esq., William S. Whitman, Esq., and James E. Durkee, Esq., Defense Intelligence Agency, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal under the management capability factor is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s past performance evaluation of projects performed by both members of a mentor-protégé joint venture is denied where the evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable small business regulations. DECISION Meltech Corporation, a small business of Landover, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Strongside Builders, LLC, of Chevy Chase, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HHM4022-22-R-0018, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for general construction services. The protester argues that the award to Strongside was improper because DIA unreasonably evaluated proposals under the management capability and past performance factors. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on May 26, 2022, seeking proposals to provide a broad range of construction maintenance, installation, repair, minor and major construction, renovation, and reconfiguration work on real property occupied by DIA in Washington, District of Columbia. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP, attach. 1, Statement of Work (SOW) at 7. The competition was set aside for small businesses. AR, Tab 6, RFP amend. 2 at 35.[1] The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a 1‑year base period and four 1-year option periods. COS at 1; SOW at 7. The RFP advised that award would be made on a best-value basis to the offeror with “the most advantageous, technically acceptable offer, considering justifiable trade-offs between past performance and price factors.” RFP at 35. In the best-value decision, the agency would consider the following four factors: (1) facility security clearance; (2) past performance; (3) technical capability; and (4) cost/price coefficients. Id. at 35‑36. Proposals would first be evaluated under the facility security clearance factor on a pass/fail basis as a “gateway factor,” where proposals receiving a rating of fail would not be evaluated further. Id. at 35. The past performance and technical capability factors would be equally important, and the non‑cost/price factors, when combined, would be significantly more important than the cost/price factor. Id. at 36. For the past performance factor, the RFP instructed offerors to provide at least five, and no more than ten, recent and relevant past performance references from federal, state, and local government contracts over the past three years that were performed for at least one year. Id. at 26. The agency would consider the recency, relevancy, and quality of the past performance information provided and assign an overall confidence assessment rating.[2] Id. at 27. The RFP also informed offerors that the agency may use past performance information obtained from other sources, including “possible interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers.” Id. at 37. The technical capability factor was comprised of two parts: management capability and seed project. Id. at 28, 40‑44. For management capability, the agency would assign an overall combined technical/risk rating considering the following three subparts: project management/technical support; quality control; and subcontract management.[3] Id. at 40-42.