Sauer Construction, LLC (N40085-24-R-2546)

B-423138,B-423138.3 Feb 04, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sauer Construction, LLC, of Jacksonville, Florida, protests the issuance of a task order to RQ Construction, LLC, of Carlsbad, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-24-R-2546, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command for building construction and renovation services. The protester alleges that the agency failed to evaluate the awardee's project labor agreement (PLA) in accordance with the solicitation and applicable laws and regulations. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Sauer Construction, LLC File: B-423138; B-423138.3 Date: February 4, 2025 Lawrence M. Prosen, Esq., Eric W. Leonard, Esq., and Matthew J. Howell, Esq., Cozen O’Connor, for the protester. Richard J. Pinto, II, Esq., Marks & Pinto, LLP, for RQ Construction, LLC, the intervenor. David L. Nimmich, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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 Protest arguing that agency failed to evaluate whether the awardee’s project labor agreement (PLA) complied with FAR provision 52.222-33, as required by the solicitation, is denied where the protester fails to establish that it was competitively prejudiced by the agency’s failure to evaluate the awardee’s PLA. DECISION Sauer Construction, LLC, of Jacksonville, Florida, protests the issuance of a task order to RQ Construction, LLC, of Carlsbad, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-24-R-2546, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command for building construction and renovation services. The protester alleges that the agency failed to evaluate the awardee’s project labor agreement (PLA) in accordance with the solicitation and applicable laws and regulations. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 26, 2024, the Navy issued the task order solicitation, using the ordering procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, to holders of the agency’s multiple‑award, indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contracts for large general construction projects in the Hampton Roads area of responsibility. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2; Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFP at 1‑2. The agency sought proposals for renovation and repair services for up to three buildings located at Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk, Virginia. Id. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a single fixed-price task order with a period of performance of 1,580 calendar days. RFP at 2-3. The solicitation provided that the task order would be awarded to the responsible offeror offering the best value to the government using tradeoff procedures considering three factors: (1) technical solution; (2) past performance; and (3) price. Id. at 5. In the tradeoff, the technical solution and the past performance factors were to be of equal importance, while the combined non-price factors would be approximately equal to price in importance. Id. As relevant here, the solicitation required offerors to submit “a signed [PLA] (signed by both the Contractor and the Labor Organization) with their Price Proposal submission, in accordance with FAR Provision 52.222-33 and FAR Clause 52.222-34.” Id. at 8. Offerors were advised that the solicited requirement was considered a “Large-scale Construction Project” as defined in FAR section 22.502, and thus, “the requirements of FAR Subpart 22.5 will apply.” Id. The solicitation also warned that “Offerors that do not include a signed [PLA] complying with the terms of FAR 52.222-33 and 52.222-34 shall be considered nonresponsive and ineligible for award.” Id. The RFP instructed offerors that price proposals “shall be submitted separately,” advising that “any price information included in the non-price/technical proposal will not be considered” and “non‑price/technical information included in the price proposal will not be considered.” Id. The solicitation also provided that the agency would “evaluate price based on the total lump sum price” using various techniques “to ensure a fair and reasonable price.” Id. The agency received timely proposals from three offerors, including Sauer and RQ. COS/MOL at 2‑3. After convening a task order evaluation board (TOEB), the agency’s technical evaluators evaluated non-price proposals, while the contract specialist evaluated price proposals, which included the offerors’ PLAs. Id. at 2. The contract specialist conducted a limited review of the offerors’ PLAs, which confirmed that each PLA was signed by the offeror and a labor organization, and then concluded that all offerors had submitted acceptable PLAs. Id.