Castellano Cobra UTE- MACC LEY 18-1982 (N6247022R0001)

B-421146.2 Jan 19, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Castellano Cobra UTE MACC LEY 18-1982, of Rota, Spain, protests the issuance of a task order to Dragados Sociedad Anonima, of Madrid, Spain, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62470-22-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering System Command, for construction services. Castellano contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and that the agency should have engaged in clarifications with the protester. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Castellano Cobra UTE- MACC LEY 18-1982 File: B-421146.2 Date: January 19, 2024 Robert J. Symon, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., Owen E. Salyers, Esq., and Nathaniel J. Greeson, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Hillary J. Freund, Esq., Gregory H. Koger, Esq., and Stephen Shapiro, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Dragados Sociedad Anonima, the intervenor. Chad L. Diederich, Department of the Navy, for the agency. Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, 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 is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and where the agency did not have a duty to engage in clarifications. DECISION Castellano Cobra UTE MACC LEY 18-1982, of Rota, Spain, protests the issuance of a task order to Dragados Sociedad Anonima, of Madrid, Spain, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62470-22-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering System Command, for construction services. Castellano contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and that the agency should have engaged in clarifications with the protester. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on September 16, 2022, pursuant the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, sought proposals from holders of the agency’s indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ), unrestricted multiple-award construction contract (MACC) for design-build construction projects primarily located at the naval station in Rota, Spain. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, IDIQ MACC at 2; AR, Exh. 5, Solicitation Email at 2. The project contemplated by the task order included construction of an administrative building and a training building with offices, conference rooms, break rooms, and restrooms; construction of a joint mobility center with an air passenger terminal, transit personnel center, food services, and a playground; demolition of various site features and facilities; and renovation of administrative offices within an existing facility. AR, Exh. 2, RFP at 3. The resulting firm-fixed-price task order was to be awarded “to the responsible offer[or] submitting the lowest reasonable total price.” RFP at 5. The solicitation required offerors to complete a pricing form, to include total prices for the following contract line item numbers (CLINs): 0001AA, 0001AB, 0001AC, 0001AD, 0001AE, 0001AF, 0001AG, 0001AH, 0001AI, 0001AJ, 0001AK, 0001AL, and CLINs 0002 through 0020.[1] Id.; AR, Exh. 3, RFP Attachments at 5-14. In addition to requiring total prices for each CLIN, offerors were directed to provide unit prices for the following CLINs: 0001AI, 0001AJ, 0001AK, 0001AL, and 0007 through 0014. AR, Exh. 3, RFP Attachments at 7‑11. The solicitation advised that the agency would evaluate price based on the total price for all CLINs. RFP at 7. As relevant here, an RFP attachment labeled “supplementary instructions to offerors” warned that “[i]f there is a difference between a unit price and the extended total, the unit price will be held to be the intended bid and the total recomputed accordingly.” AR, Exh. 3, RFP Attachments at 14. As also relevant here, the IDIQ base contract included FAR clause 52.225-14, which states that “[i]n the event of inconsistency between any terms of this contract and any translation into another language, the English language meaning shall control.” AR, Exh. 1, IDIQ MACC at 108. The RFP advised that the “[c]lauses incorporated in [the] [b]ase [c]ontract apply to this solicitation.”[2] RFP at 3. The solicitation also advised offerors that the agency “intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)).” RFP at 7.