Sheela Inc. (FA448424R0017)

B-423412 Jul 01, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sheela Inc., a small business, of Wrightstown, New Jersey protests the awards of six contracts, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA448424R0017, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for design-build and construction projects at Joint Base McGuire Dix Lakehurst (JBMDL), New Jersey. The protester contends that Sheela should have received an award had the agency reasonably evaluated its past performance. 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 redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Sheela Inc. File: B-423412 Date: July 1, 2025 Ross Fox, Esq., A Y Strauss, LLC, for the protester. Nina R. Paladino, Esq., Major Ryan P. Payne, Sarah Needham, Esq., Kyle Paladino, Esq., and Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Michael A. Eible III, Emily R. O'Hara, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's evaluation of protestor's past performance is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Sheela Inc., a small business, of Wrightstown, New Jersey protests the awards of six contracts, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA448424R0017, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for design-build and construction projects at Joint Base McGuire Dix Lakehurst (JBMDL), New Jersey. The protester contends that Sheela should have received an award had the agency reasonably evaluated its past performance. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On September 5, 2024, the Air Force issued the solicitation, as a small business set‑aside, for an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity multiple award construction contract (MACC), pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15 and subpart 36.3. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 1; Contracting Officer Statement (COS) at 2. The agency sought proposals for the execution of a broad range of design-build and construction projects at JBMDL, with award based on offerors' responses to the solicitation's “seed” project. RFP at 54, 56. The seed project was to provide partial design-build for the conversion of a dorm room into a new common area kitchenette for building 821. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1; AR Tab 8, RFP amend. 3 at 61. The solicitation contemplated award of five--but reserved the right to award more--MACCs for one base year and six 1-year option periods. RFP at 207. Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following factors: price and past performance. Id. at 207. Past performance was significantly more important than price.[1] Offers would be ranked according to the proposed seed project price. Id. at 208. The solicitation explained: If the lowest five (5) priced offerors were not determined to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, the next five (5) lowest priced offerors would be evaluated, and the process would continue (in order by price) until a target of five (5) offerors were determined to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment, or until all offerors re-evaluated. Id. The agency received 25 proposals by the solicitation's October 21, deadline. COS at 3. Sheela was ranked the sixth lowest-priced offer, with a total evaluated price of $109,792.62. AR, Tab 20, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report at 30. After evaluating the protester's past performance references, the agency assigned Sheela a confidence rating of “limited confidence.” AR, Tab 21, Source Selection Decision at 3. On March 12, 2025, the Air Force awarded MACCs to six offerors.[2] COS at 8. On the same day, the Air Force notified Sheela that it was an unsuccessful offeror. AR, Tab 22, Unsuccessful Offeror Letter at 2. Sheela requested and received a written debriefing on March 13. AR, Tab 23, Debrief at 1. This protest followed on March 24. DISCUSSION Sheela raises multiple challenges to the agency's evaluation of the firm's proposal. The protestor contends the Air Force's evaluation of its past performance was unreasonable because the agency relied solely upon one negative Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) report and failed to consider the protestor's rebuttal of the negative CPARS report. Protest at 2-3. Additionally, the protester asserts that the Air Force's decision to amend the solicitation after submission of proposals was improper. Comments at 4-5. We have considered all the protester's arguments and find no basis to sustain the protest. Past Performance Evaluation Sheela challenges the agency's evaluation of the firm's past performance. Protest at 2.