Venergy Group, LLC (W912HN23R4002)

B-422708 Sep 10, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Venergy Group, LLC, a small business of Fort Pierce, Florida, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competition conducted under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HN-23-R-4002, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers for general and design-build construction projects issued by the Army's Savannah District in Georgia. The protester challenges the evaluation of its proposal and the decision to exclude it from the second phase of the competition. We dismiss the protest as untimely. View Decision Decision Matter of: Venergy Group, LLC File: B-422708 Date: September 10, 2024 Ashley Ellis, Venergy Group, LLC, for the protester. Phillip T. Paradise, Esq., and Nelson J. Van Eck, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. In a procurement conducted under the twophase designbuild selection procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 36.3, protest challenging agency's evaluation of protester's phase one proposal is dismissed as untimely where the protest was filed more than 10 days after the protester received information that formed the basis of the protest. 2. Debriefing provided subsequent to phase one of the twophase designbuild procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 36.3 does not constitute a required debriefing under our general timeliness rules because the phase one procurement is not a procurement conducted on the basis of competitive proposals. DECISION Venergy Group, LLC, a small business of Fort Pierce, Florida, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competition conducted under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HN23R4002, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers for general and designbuild construction projects issued by the Army's Savannah District in Georgia. The protester challenges the evaluation of its proposal and the decision to exclude it from the second phase of the competition. We dismiss the protest as untimely. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on May 5, 2023, and set aside the requirement for small businesses. Req. for Dismissal, Tab A, RFP at 1. The solicitation contemplated award of up to eight indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, multiple-award task order contracts for a base ordering period of five years. Id. The procurement was conducted pursuant to the two-phase design-build provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.3.[1] Id. Under phase one, which is the phase at issue in this protest, the agency would evaluate proposals using the following two factors: (1) past performance; and (2) design experience. Id. at 11-17. The agency would evaluate the phase-one proposals and determine which offerors, if any, would proceed to phase two. Id. at 17. The agency contemplated selecting no more than 15 of the most highly qualified offerors to participate in the second phase of the competition. Id. at 1, 5. On June 12, 2024, the agency notified Venergy that it was not selected to participate in the second phase of the competition. Req. for Dismissal at 1; see Resp. to Dismissal Req., attach. 1, Notice of Unsuccessful Offeror at 1. Enclosed with the notice was the agency's assessment of Venergy's phase one proposal. Resp. to Dismissal Req., attach. 1, Notice of Unsuccessful Offeror at 211. The notice stated that the procurement was “being conducted in accordance with the process at [FAR subpart] 36.3, Two-Phase DesignBuild Selection Procedures.” Id. at 1. The notice also informed Venergy that “[i]n accordance with FAR 15.505, [Venergy is] entitled to one debriefing before award of a contract under this solicitation.” Id. On June 15, Venergy requested a debriefing. Protest at 1; Resp. to Dismissal Req., attach. 2, Req. for Debriefing at 1. The contracting officer offered to provide a written debriefing and respond to any questions from Venergy. Resp. to Dismissal Req. at 2. On June 19, Venergy submitted one question by email and, on June 20, the contracting officer provided a written response to Venergy's debriefing question. Id.; Resp. to Dismissal Req., attach. 3, Debriefing Question at 1; Resp. to Dismissal Req., attach. 4, Resp. to Debriefing Question at 12. On June 30, Venergy filed this protest. DISCUSSION The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of Venergy's phase one proposal. Specifically, the protester argues that the agency unreasonably found that Venergy's past performance projects were “limited in scope and [did] not include a wide variety of disciplines.” Protest at 1.