KBT Contracting Corporation (W911YN24R0002)

B-422662.2 Dec 12, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights KBT Contracting Corporation, of Jacksonville, Florida, protests the rejection of the proposal it submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. W911YN-24-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Army, National Guard Bureau, for maintenance, repair, construction, and design-build services in support of National Guard activities in Florida. KBT asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its past performance. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: KBT Contracting Corporation File: B-422662.2 Date: December 12, 2024 Rebecca Timmons for the protester. Andrew J. Smith, Esq., Paula Barr, Esq., Sean B. Zehtab, Esq., and Joshua Reyes, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Procuring agency reasonably determined that protester’s past performance reference was not for a Department of Defense contract issued by a Department of Defense component where the contract number did not conform to Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements for numbering federal contracts and there was no other information in the proposal demonstrating that it was a Department of Defense contract. DECISION KBT Contracting Corporation, of Jacksonville, Florida, protests the rejection of the proposal it submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. W911YN-24-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Army, National Guard Bureau, for maintenance, repair, construction, and design-build services in support of National Guard activities in Florida. KBT asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its past performance. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the solicitation on January 23, 2024, for the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts for maintenance, repair, construction, and design-build services. As relevant to this protest, the solicitation instructed offerors to submit past performance examples for between five and seven projects that demonstrated experience performing work like that required by the solicitation. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 16. At least one of the submitted projects was required to “have been performed on a Department of Defense [(DOD)] contract issued by any [DOD] component.” Id. at 17. Offerors were required to submit a contractor performance assessment reporting system (CPARS) evaluation or a past performance questionnaire for each project. Id. at 18. The solicitation advised offerors that the contracting officer would conduct an initial compliance review to determine that the proposal was complete, and all evaluation factors were addressed. Id. at 15. KBT submitted a timely proposal in which it listed as one of its past performance examples a demolition contract issued by Camp Blanding Joint Training Center Barracks. KBT stated in its proposal that this contract was a DOD contract. AR Tab 10, KBT Proposal at 19. The contracting officer conducted a compliance review and determined that KBT did not provide a past performance example for a DOD contract that was issued by a DOD component. The contracting officer recognized KBT’s representation that the Camp Blanding contract was a DOD contract but determined that the contract number provided demonstrated that the contract was not a DOD contract. AR, Tab 19, Compliance Review, at 2.[1] As a result, KBT’s proposal was rejected; this protest followed. DISCUSSION KBT protests that the Camp Blanding Joint Training Center Barracks contract was performed for the Florida National Guard. KBT alleges this contract meets the requirement for past performance on a DOD contract that was issued by a DOD component because, according to KBT, the Florida National Guard is a DOD component. KBT asserts that its proposal was therefore unreasonably rejected. In reviewing protests challenging the evaluation of proposals, GAO does not conduct a new evaluation or substitute its judgment for that of the agency; rather, GAO examines the record to determine if the agency’s judgment was reasonable and in accord with the evaluation criteria. Hendall, Inc., B-417513.3, B-417513.4, Feb. 24, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 87 at 7. Here, in its proposal KBT listed the Camp Blanding contract as “Project #218042.” AR, Tab 10, KBT Proposal at 19. While the proposal stated that it was a DOD contract, KBT did not provide any further information in its proposal to support this position. The contracting officer reviewed the proposal and determined that the contract number listed demonstrated that the Camp Blanding contract was not a DOD contract.