Mike Coates Construction Company, Inc. (47PD0122R0044)

B-421618 Apr 05, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Mike Coates Construction Company, Inc. (Coates), a small business of Niles, Ohio, protests the award of a contract to Burchick Construction Company, Inc., a small business of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 47PD0122R0044, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for construction work at the Joseph F. Weis, Jr. United States Bankruptcy Court (USBC) backfill project in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of Coates's prior experience and past performance, and asserts that the agency's tradeoff analysis and best-value determination were arbitrary and unreasonable. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Mike Coates Construction Company, Inc. File: B-421618 Date: July 20, 2023 Christina T. Hassel, Esq., and Colten Siedlarczyk, Esq., Hahn Loeser & Parks, LLP, for the protester. Anthony Giannopoulos, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Lucas Della Ventura, Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of an agency’s technical evaluation and best-value tradeoff determination is denied where the record shows that the evaluation and best-value tradeoff determination were reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION Mike Coates Construction Company, Inc. (Coates), a small business of Niles, Ohio, protests the award of a contract to Burchick Construction Company, Inc., a small business of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 47PD0122R0044, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for construction work at the Joseph F. Weis, Jr. United States Bankruptcy Court (USBC) backfill project in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of Coates’s prior experience and past performance, and asserts that the agency’s tradeoff analysis and best-value determination were arbitrary and unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 29, 2022, the agency issued the solicitation for construction work in the Joseph F. Weis, Jr. U.S. Courthouse in Pittsburgh, PA, as a set-aside for small business concerns, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 19. The Weis USBC backfill project consists generally of demolition, renovation, and associated infrastructure work, including mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, and limited structural work. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.[1] This FAR part 15 negotiated procurement was conducted using a two-phased process. Agency Report (AR), exh. 1, RFP at 7, 15. GSA solicited technical proposals in phase 1 and price proposals in phase 2.[2] RFP at 7. The solicitation provided that technical proposals would be evaluated under three factors, and established the factors’ relative weights, as follows: Project Management Plan and Approach – 30%; Prior Experience on Relevant Projects – 40%; Past Performance on Relevant Projects – 30%. RFP at 10.[3] The RFP stated the agency would utilize the project information submitted under the prior experience factor to assess the relevance and quality of work under the past performance factor.[4] Id at 14 (emphasis added). Prior experience on relevant projects, would be “evaluated based upon the written response to the RFP by the [o]fferor and the prior experience demonstrated on the presented projects.” RFP at 13. The solicitation defined “relevant projects” as projects that had a similar size and complexity that entailed renovations of facilities with similar characteristics to those described below: ·Total dollar value of the contract (awarded price and final contract price) of approximately $10 million. ·Renovation of an office building, of approximately 20,000 [square feet]. ·Renovation of a courtroom and chambers. ·Federal clientele. ·Phased construction in an occupied building. ·A scope of work that includes architectural build-out, mechanical work, electrical work, audio-visual and informational technology systems, security systems, and work on fire protection systems. ·Reached substantial completion within the last 10 years. The RFP indicated that projects with similar characteristics to those listed above would be rated more highly when considering the firm’s performance capabilities under the past performance factor. Offerors were instructed that only the first three projects submitted would serve as the basis for the agency’s technical evaluation, while additional projects submitted “may be given additional favorable consideration.”[5] RFP at 12. Price was evaluated separately, prior to the agency’s trade-off analysis. The non-price factors, when combined, were described as being significantly more important than price.