Korea Engineering Consultants Corporation (W91QVN-23-R-0026)

B-422203.2,B-422204.2 Feb 16, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Korea Engineering Consultants Corporation (KECC) protests its exclusion from the awards of two multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts issued under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91QVN-23-R-0026 and RFP No. W91QVN-23-R-0027 by the Department of the Army for general construction services to be provided at United States Forces Korea facilities in the Republic of Korea. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposals as technically unacceptable. We deny the protests. View Decision Decision Matter of: Korea Engineering Consultants Corporation File: B-422203.2; B-422204.2 Date: February 16, 2024 Song Yong Eui, Esq., Central IP & Law, for the protester. Andrew J. Smith, Esq., Natalie W. McKiernan, Esq., Bruce A. Nessler, Esq., Nolan T. Koon, Esq., Dmitrius R. McGruder, Esq., and Nhu T. Tran, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Christine Milne, Esq., Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protests that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s proposals are denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably determined that the proposals did not adequately address the requirements of the solicitations. DECISION Korea Engineering Consultants Corporation (KECC) protests its exclusion from the awards of two multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts issued under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91QVN-23-R-0026 and RFP No. W91QVN-23-R-0027 by the Department of the Army for general construction services to be provided at United States Forces Korea facilities in the Republic of Korea. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposals as technically unacceptable.[1] We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The Army issued the RFPs on February 17, 2023, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation part 15 seeking the award of multiple IDIQ contracts for general construction services at United States Forces Korea facilities in the Republic of Korea. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 9. The contractors were to provide all labor, materials, and equipment necessary to perform repairs and upgrades to the facilities and manage construction in accordance with the statements of work (SOW). Id. at 9‑10. The RFPs contemplated the award of contracts to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offerors considering the following factors: technical, past performance, and price. Id. at 96-98. The technical factor included five subfactors: construction registration; contract management plan; key personnel resumes; relevant experience; and sample task orders. Id. at 96-97. Each non-price factor received a rating of acceptable or unacceptable, and any technical subfactor that received an unacceptable rating would result in an overall technically unacceptable rating. Id. at 96. Price was evaluated for reasonableness and realism. Id. at 103. As relevant here, the contract management plan subfactor required offerors to provide a plan detailing their processes for managing performance. Id. at 98. Offerors were to describe their methods for planning, scheduling, and tracking the progress of task orders, as well as the resources to be used. Id. This subfactor also required proposals to include an organization chart for overall management that demonstrated the functional relationships between individual team members and, at a minimum, included all required key personnel and clearly showed lines of authority. Id. Also relevant here, the key personnel resumes subfactor required proposals to include four key personnel: a contract manager (CM), a project manager (PM), a contractor quality control system manager (CQCSM), and a site safety and health officer (SSHO). Id. at 96-97. Offerors were required to provide proof of qualifications and resumes for the PM, CQCSM, and SSHO, however they were not required for the CM. Id. at 98-99. The agency received proposals by the submission due dates, including from KECC. COS at 3. The source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated KECC’s proposal[2] and found that although its proposal appeared to identify all the required key personnel, in its contract management plan, for task orders valued between $10,000 and $150,000,[3] the proposal indicated that the CQCSM and SSHO would be on site only some of the time and its “head office” personnel would manage quality control and safety activities on site. AR, Tab 9, KECC Technical Evaluation at 1. The SSEB also noted that KECC’s proposal did not clearly describe which of KECC’s personnel worked in the head office and whether those personnel had the required qualifications to manage the work.