ASFA International Construction, Inc. (W912GB23R0041)

B-422594 Aug 13, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ASFA International Construction, Inc. (ASFA), of Seyhan, Turkey, protests its exclusion from consideration for award under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912GB23R0041, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers for construction services in Poland. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the firm's proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision 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. Matter of: ASFA International Construction, Inc. File: B-422594 Date: August 13, 2024 Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Offit Kurman, P.A., for the protester. Regina Schowalter, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In procurement conducted using two-phase selection procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 36.3, protest of agency's evaluation of phase one proposal and decision to exclude protester from phase two is denied where the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION ASFA International Construction, Inc. (ASFA), of Seyhan, Turkey, protests its exclusion from consideration for award under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912GB23R0041, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers for construction services in Poland. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the firm's proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On September 6, 2023, the agency issued the solicitation using the two-phase selection procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.3 for design-bid (DB) and design-bid-build (DBB) construction services. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Initial RFP at 21; Tab 14, Conformed RFP at 845, 849-850.[1] The solicitation contemplated award of “a target of five” indefinitedelivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ), multiple-award task order contracts (MATOCs) “for DB and DBB construction requirements providing new facilities and real property repair and maintenance in support of defense operations in Poland.” RFP at 850. The awarded contracts will have a 5-year base period of performance, a minimum guarantee of $2,000 each, and a cumulative ordering ceiling of $98,000,000. Id. at 850, 910. The solicitation explained that work under the awarded MATOCs “may include, but is not limited to, new building construction, general building repair and renovation, road and pavement repair, general environmental, incidental minor construction, excavation, plumbing, demolition, electrical, structural, mechanical, concrete work, and environmental remedial work (hazardous waste abatement and disposal).” Id. at 910. For phase one of the competition, offerors were required to submit proposals addressing the following two non-price evaluation factors, which were of equal importance: (1) past performance and (2) management approach. RFP at 850. The solicitation provided that each offeror's past performance would “be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment,” and set forth possible confidence ratings of substantial, satisfactory, neutral, limited, or no confidence. Id. at 852, 857. Under the management approach factor, offerors' proposals would “be reviewed to determine that offerors possess a clear understanding of the work and an ability to coordinate resources to ensure successful pursuit of the work,” and assigned an adjectival rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. Id. at 852, 858. The solicitation established that after phase one evaluations, proposals would be “down-selected”; that is, only the most “highly qualified” offerors would be allowed to proceed and be invited to submit proposals for phase two. RFP at 851. In phase two, the agency would evaluate price and an additional non-price factor (technical approach) both of which were to be evaluated in the context of a specific project. Id. at 850-851. The three nonprice factors combined were approximately equal in importance to price. Id. The agency received 20 timely proposals, including ASFA's offer. AR, Tab 7, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report at 702; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1 ¶ 5. The evaluators assigned ASFA's proposal a rating of satisfactory confidence under the past performance factor and a rating of acceptable under the management approach factor. AR, Tab 7, SSEB Report at 703, 728, 731. Based on evaluation of phase one proposals, the contracting officer, who is also the source selection authority (SSA) for this procurement, selected six offerors “as the most highly qualified” and invited them to participate in phase two of source selection process.