The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company (N6247323R1012)

B-422278 Mar 26, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, of Baltimore, Maryland, protests its exclusion from the competition for award under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6247323R1012, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command, for construction services. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its past performance. 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: The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company File: B-422278 Date: March 26, 2024 Nick R. Hoogstraten, Esq., Peckar & Abramson, P.C., for the protester. Katherine Arutunian, Esq., Deana Jaeger, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Christine Milne, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s past performance is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was conducted in accordance with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations. DECISION The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, of Baltimore, Maryland, protests its exclusion from the competition for award under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6247323R1012, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command, for construction services. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its past performance. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on May 30, 2023, for a multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, for construction, repair, and renovation services at various government installations in California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 2, RFP at 1. Award was to be made to eight or more offerors whose proposals provided the best value to the government, based on the two-phase design-build evaluation process described in FAR subpart 36.3. Id. at 9. In phase one, proposals were evaluated considering four non-price factors: technical approach, experience, past performance, and safety. Id. at 13. Phase one determined which offerors were the most highly qualified, and those offerors were asked to submit proposals for phase two, during which the remaining two non-price factors and price would be evaluated. Id. at 12. As relevant here, in evaluating proposals under the past performance factor, the agency was to consider the recency, relevancy, source, context, and general trends in performance arising from the projects submitted by offerors under the experience factor.[1] Id. at 11. Past projects were recent if they had been performed within five years prior to the RFP’s issuance date, and relevant if they were similar in service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and other comparable attributes. Id. Offerors were required to submit final contractor performance assessment reporting system (CPARS) evaluations for each project or, if a final CPARS was unavailable, then offerors were required to submit past performance questionnaires (PPQs) for each project. Id. at 18. The agency also reserved the right to obtain additional past performance information, such as a full report of all CPARS evaluations for a particular offeror. Id. The RFP advised that offerors were permitted to address any adverse past performance information. Id. at 19. Past performance was evaluated using an adjectival rating scheme of substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, neutral confidence, limited confidence, and no confidence. Id. at 11, 19. The agency received proposals from 16 offerors by the submission due date, including one from Whiting-Turner. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 5; AR, Exh. 7, Technical Evaluation Team (TET) Report at 1. On August 11, the TET began evaluating proposals. COS/MOL at 6. Whiting-Turner’s proposal included five construction projects and five design projects, and the TET determined that all of them were recent and relevant. AR, Exh. 7, TET Report at 9-10. Of the five construction projects, three had exceptional and mostly exceptional ratings and the other two had mostly satisfactory ratings. Id. at 9. Of the five design projects, three had very good ratings, one had a satisfactory rating, and one project was not considered because its PPQ was filled out by a member of the offeror’s team, which disqualified it from consideration. Id.