Royal Bridge, Inc. (W9127S24C0001)

B-422263 Feb 28, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Royal Bridge, Inc., a small business of Palm Harbor, Florida, protests the award of a contract to McCormick Industrial Abatement Services, Inc., a small business of Little Rock, Arkansas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9127S-23-R-0011, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers for rehabilitation services at the Arthur V. Ormond Lock and Dam near Morrilton, Arkansas. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of its proposal as only warranting acceptable ratings under two of the four non-price evaluation factors was unreasonable because the protester's proposal received lower ratings than what the protester received under a previous, separate RFP for substantially similar work with the same agency. 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: Royal Bridge, Inc. File: B-422263 Date: February 28, 2024 S. Leo Arnold, Esq., Ashley & Arnold, for the protester. Keith Bearden, McCormick Industrial Abatement Services, Inc., for the intervenor. Tarrah M. Beavin, Esq., Ronald Goodeyon, Esq., Cristy Park, Esq., and Skye Martin, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Suresh S. Boodram, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, 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 record demonstrates that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation; an agency’s evaluation is not unreasonable merely because the evaluation ratings assigned are not identical to those assigned in a prior procurement conducted by a different evaluation team for the same agency for similar requirements utilizing similar evaluation criteria. DECISION Royal Bridge, Inc., a small business of Palm Harbor, Florida, protests the award of a contract to McCormick Industrial Abatement Services, Inc., a small business of Little Rock, Arkansas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9127S-23-R-0011, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers for rehabilitation services at the Arthur V. Ormond Lock and Dam near Morrilton, Arkansas. The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of its proposal as only warranting acceptable ratings under two of the four non-price evaluation factors was unreasonable because the protester’s proposal received lower ratings than what the protester received under a previous, separate RFP for substantially similar work with the same agency. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP as a small business set-aside on August 1, 2023, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 1, 19. The RFP contemplated issuance of a fixed-price construction contract to rehabilitate the Tainter (i.e., radial flood) gates at Arthur V. Ormond Lock and Dam through blast cleaning, painting, anode replacement, and other incidental work. Id. at 5; Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1. The RFP contemplates a 1,095-day performance period for all base tasks, and also includes optional tasks that could extend the performance period by 90 days for each additional Tainter gate to be remediated. AR, Tab 3, RFP at 3. The RFP provided that an award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering four non-price factors and price. AR, Tab 3, RFP at 10-11, 19. The non-price factors, listed in descending order of importance, were: (1) technical approach; (2) organization; (3) schedule; and (4) past performance. Id. at 19. The non-price factors, when combined, were more important than price. Id. Only the technical approach and organization evaluation factors are relevant to the issues presented in the protest. Under the technical approach factor, the agency was to evaluate the extent to which an offeror’s proposal demonstrated the offeror’s: (i) understanding of the requirements, technical risks, and site constraints associated with the required work; (ii) understanding of how major work tasks impact other major work tasks needed to accomplish the work; and (iii) approach for managing the technical risks and site constraints for each major task of work. Id.