BBGSRO Construction SRL (W912GB-23-R-0033)

B-423091,B-423091.2 Jan 21, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights BBGSRO Construction S.R.L., of Bucharest, Romania, protests the award of a contract to JV SKE Italy 2012, of Vincenza, Italy, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912GB-23-R-0033, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Europe District, for the design and construction of the explosive and ammunition loading and unloading apron at the military's Mihail Kogalniceanu (MK) main camp air base in Romania. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the technical approach, management approach, and past performance proposals submitted by both offerors and the best-value tradeoff determination. The protester also argues that the agency's evaluation and the conduct of discussions were unequal. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: BBGSRO Construction S.R.L. File: B-423091; B-423091.2 Date: January 21, 2025 Lawrence J. Sklute, Esq., Sklute & Associates, for the protester. William F. Savarino, Esq., Rhina M. Cardenal, Esq., and John O’Brien, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for JV SKE Italy 2012, the intervenor. Regina Schowalter, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., Michelle E. Litteken, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Supplemental protest allegations based on information derived from an improperly redacted document included in the agency report are dismissed for abuse of process, where the protester failed to alert the agency or our Office to the issue, and instead electronically manipulated protected material for the purpose of obtaining access to information the agency intended to redact. 2. Protest challenging agency’s failure to provide protester equal time for submitting a revised proposal is dismissed where the protester failed to timely raise this protest ground. 3. Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of protester’s non-price proposal is denied, where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION BBGSRO Construction S.R.L., of Bucharest, Romania, protests the award of a contract to JV SKE Italy 2012, of Vincenza, Italy, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912GB-23-R-0033, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Europe District, for the design and construction of the explosive and ammunition loading and unloading apron at the military’s Mihail Kogalniceanu (MK) main camp air base in Romania. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of the technical approach, management approach, and past performance proposals submitted by both offerors and the best-value tradeoff determination. The protester also argues that the agency’s evaluation and the conduct of discussions were unequal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on June 2, 2023, seeking design and construction services to provide an explosives and ammunition loading and unloading apron at MK, with appropriate safety setbacks and taxiways.[1] AR, Tab 11.5, Conformed RFP at 1473, 1486. The solicitation contemplated award of a single, fixed‑priced, design‑build construction contract with a base period of 1,165 calendar days. Id. at 1547. The procurement was conducted pursuant to the two-phase design-build provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 36.303. Id. at 1486. In phase one, the agency was to evaluate proposals using the following two factors: past performance; and management approach. Id. at 1486-87. The solicitation established that after phase one evaluations, proposals would be “down-selected;” that is, only the most “highly qualified” offerors would be invited to submit proposals for phase two. Id. at 1487. In phase two, the Corps would evaluate each offeror’s technical approach and price. Id. Following the phase two evaluation, the agency was to conduct a best-value tradeoff pursuant to FAR part 15 to identify the awardee. Id. at 1507. The RFP provided that the non-price factors were approximately equal in importance and that all non-price factors, when combined, were approximately equal in importance to price. Id. As relevant here, for the past performance factor, the solicitation instructed offerors to submit a maximum of five projects that were similar to the instant project in terms of size and scope. Id. at 1494. The solicitation provided that a project must have a minimum cost of 10 million euros to be considered similar in size, and that design-build horizontal airfield pavement construction projects would be considered similar in scope.[2] Id. at 1495. Additionally, the RFP stated that projects demonstrating experience with six identified features may be considered more relevant.[3] Id.