Tidewater PEM JV LLC (N4008023R0022)

B-422813,B-422813.2,B-422813.3 Oct 28, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CIMA JV, of Leesburg, Virginia; G-W Management Services, LLC, of Rockville, Maryland; and Tidewater-PEM JV LLC, of Elkridge, Maryland, protest the award of contracts to CER, Inc., of Severna Park, Maryland; CJW Contractors, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia; Edifice Services JV, LLC, of Gaithersburg, Maryland; Encon Desbuild JV 3 LLC, of Hyattsville, Maryland; Evcon-CWC JV LLC, of Washington, DC; Fastbreak General Contractors LLC, of Hampton, Virginia; Ocean Construction Services Inc., of Virginia Beach, Virginia; and Ritz Construction Inc., of Frederick, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N4008023R0022, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (NAVFAC), for construction services within the NAVFAC Washington area of responsibility. The protesters contend that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and conducted a flawed source selection decision. We deny the protests. 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: CIMA JV; G-W Management Services, LLC; Tidewater-PEM JV LLC File: B-422813; B-422813.2; B-422813.3 Date: October 28, 2024 Herman M. Braude, Esq., Braude Law Group, P.C., for the protesters. Benjamin L. Williams, Esq., Cozen O’Connor, for CER, Inc.; Douglas L. Patin, Esq., and Lisa A. Markman, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for Encon Desbuild JV 3, LLC; and Robert J. Symon, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., and Erik M. Coon, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for Edifice Services JV, LLC, the intervenors. Ann L. Giddings, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protests asserting that awardees should have been rejected based on low prices are dismissed where the solicitation did not require a price realism evaluation. 2. Protest challenging the evaluation of protester’s past performance is denied where it was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION CIMA JV, of Leesburg, Virginia; G-W Management Services, LLC, of Rockville, Maryland; and Tidewater-PEM JV LLC, of Elkridge, Maryland, protest the award of contracts to CER, Inc., of Severna Park, Maryland; CJW Contractors, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia; Edifice Services JV, LLC, of Gaithersburg, Maryland; Encon Desbuild JV 3 LLC, of Hyattsville, Maryland; Evcon-CWC JV LLC, of Washington, DC; Fastbreak General Contractors LLC, of Hampton, Virginia; Ocean Construction Services Inc., of Virginia Beach, Virginia; and Ritz Construction Inc., of Frederick, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N4008023R0022, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (NAVFAC), for construction services within the NAVFAC Washington area of responsibility. The protesters contend that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and conducted a flawed source selection decision. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND On October 5, 2023, the Navy issued the RFP as a small business set-aside, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation part 15. Agency Report (AR) Tab 1, RFP at 1, 4.[1] The agency sought proposals for construction services in the NAVFAC Washington area of responsibility, which includes military installations in Maryland; Washington, D.C.; and Virginia. AR, Tab 2, RFP amends. at 214. The solicitation contemplated award of “approximately eight (8)” fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts with a 2-year base and two 3-year options. Id. at 196. The total estimated construction cost for all contracts is not to exceed $750 million. Id. The solicitation established that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering price and the following five non-price evaluation factors: (1) technical approach; (2) experience; (3) project specific requirements; (4) safety; and (5) past performance. Id. at 197-98. Technical approach would be evaluated only on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. Id. at 198. The experience, project specific requirements, and safety evaluation factors were of equal importance to each other and, when combined, were of equal importance to the past performance factor.[2] Id. All non-price factors were “approximately equal to price.” Id.