Randy Kinder Excavating, Inc. (W912EQ24R0001)

B-423394 Jun 25, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Randy Kinder Excavating, Inc. (RKE), a small business of Dexter, Missouri, protests its elimination from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912EQ24R0001, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers, for miscellaneous design-build civil works construction projects throughout the Memphis District area of responsibility. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable and not in accordance with the criteria established in the solicitation. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. 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: Randy Kinder Excavating, Inc. File: B-423394 Date: June 25, 2025 Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., Ian P. Patterson, Esq., and Haley M. Sirokman, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for the protester. Matthew R. Keiser, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of protester's proposal under solicitation's construction execution approach technical factor is denied where the agency reasonably determined the protester's proposal did not adequately address material solicitation requirements and was therefore not among the most highly rated proposals eligible to participate in phase two of the procurement. 2. Protester's remaining protest grounds are dismissed where the protester cannot demonstrate any alleged agency error resulted in competitive prejudice. DECISION Randy Kinder Excavating, Inc. (RKE), a small business of Dexter, Missouri, protests its elimination from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912EQ24R0001, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers, for miscellaneous design-build civil works construction projects throughout the Memphis District area of responsibility.[1] The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable and not in accordance with the criteria established in the solicitation. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on May 9, 2024, using Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15 procedures, with the competition set aside for small businesses. Contracting Officer Statement (COS) at 1. The RFP contemplated the award of one or more indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts[2] with fixed-price task orders and a period of performance consisting of a 12-month based period and four additional 12-month ordering periods. RFP at 19, 22.[3] The RFP stated that the procurement would be conducted in two phases, and up to 10 of the most highly qualified offerors would be invited to submit phase two proposals following the phase one evaluation. Id. at 23. The RFP stated that phase one proposals would be evaluated under the following three technical factors, listed in descending order of importance: past performance; construction execution approach; and organization management team. Id. at 24. Past performance was to be evaluated to assess the recency, relevancy, and quality of the performance and assigned one of the following confidence ratings: substantial, satisfactory, neutral, limited, or no confidence.[4] Id. at 34-35. The remaining technical factors would be evaluated and assigned one of the following adjectival ratings: outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. Id. at 35. The RFP stated: Any proposal that receives less than an “Acceptable” rating in a technical factor or less than a “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating will be ineligible for award and will not participate in Phase Two of the solicitation. Based upon the ratings, the Government will select the most highly rated Offerors to participate in Phase Two of the solicitation. Id. at 34. The agency evaluated 21 phase one proposals received in response to the solicitation, including a proposal from RKE. AR, Tab 13, Down-Select Decision Document at 4-5. RKE received a past performance rating of satisfactory confidence with a relevancy rating of somewhat relevant. Id. at 5. RKE was rated as marginal under the construction execution approach factor, and acceptable under the organization management team factor. Id. The source selection authority (SSA) concurred with all the evaluation findings. Because of its marginal rating under the construction execution factor, RKE's proposal was not included amongst the ten most highly qualified proposals invited to phase two. Id.