Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (W9133L24R6100)

B-422853,B-422853.2,B-422853.3 Nov 26, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia, protests the non-selection of its proposal and the selection of Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co., Inc., of Arlington, Virginia, Benham-Stanley, LLC, of Jacksonville, Florida, and Merrick-RS&H Joint Venture, LLC, of Greenwood Village, Colorado, for negotiation of architect-engineering (A-E) services contracts, pursuant to synopsis No. W9133L-24-R-6100. The Department of the Army, National Guard Bureau, issued the synopsis for vertical A-E services in support of Air National Guard and Army National Guard mission requirements located throughout the multi-vertical region. The protester primarily argues the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal under multiple evaluation criteria, ultimately resulting in the agency's erroneous determination that the protester was not among the competition's most highly rated firms. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. File: B-422853; B-422853.2; B-422853.3 Date: November 26, 2024 Robert J. Symon, Esq., Nathaniel J. Greeson, Esq., Owen E. Salyers, Esq., and Charlie F. Blanchard, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Major Joshua B. Fix, Lieutenant Colonel Anthony V. Lenze, Department of the Army, for the agency. Michael P. Price, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest arguing the agency unreasonably failed to consider evaluation sub‑criteria in priority order of importance is denied. Although the record does not demonstrate that the agency’s evaluation was consistent with the terms of the synopsis, the protester was not competitively prejudiced by the agency’s error. 2. Protester’s challenges to the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under multiple evaluation criteria are denied where the record demonstrates that the agency’s conclusions were reasonable, consistent with the terms of the synopsis, and adequately documented. 3. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s past performance is denied where the record demonstrates that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the synopsis. 4. Protest challenging the agency’s selection of the top ranked firms is denied where the record demonstrates that the agency evaluated statements of qualification in a manner consistent with the terms of the synopsis and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.6. DECISION Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia, protests the non-selection of its proposal and the selection of Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co., Inc., of Arlington, Virginia, Benham‑Stanley, LLC, of Jacksonville, Florida, and Merrick-RS&H Joint Venture, LLC, of Greenwood Village, Colorado, for negotiation of architect-engineering (A-E) services contracts, pursuant to synopsis No. W9133L-24-R-6100. The Department of the Army, National Guard Bureau, issued the synopsis for vertical A-E services in support of Air National Guard and Army National Guard mission requirements located throughout the multi-vertical region.[1] The protester primarily argues the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal under multiple evaluation criteria, ultimately resulting in the agency’s erroneous determination that the protester was not among the competition’s most highly rated firms. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The procurement was conducted pursuant to the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 1102-1104, and its implementing regulations, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.6. Synopsis at 1.[2] The procedures for A-E procurements under the Brooks Act do not include a price competition; rather, the agency is required to select the most highly qualified firm(s) on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications and proceed to negotiate contracts with those firms at a fair and reasonable level of compensation. Nova Consulting, Inc., B‑419168.3, Aug. 19, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 288 at 2; see FAR subpart 36.6. The Army issued the synopsis on November 9, 2023, seeking Standard Form 330 statements of qualification[3] for a wide variety of professional A-E services to meet the needs of the National Guard Bureau. The scope of facilities for which the Army requires A-E services include aircraft hangars, corrosion control facilities, aircraft maintenance facilities, vehicle maintenance facilities, support equipment maintenance facilities, administrative facilities, and others. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; Synopsis at 4.