Jude & L Construction, LLC (FA491125R0002)

B-423425 Jul 03, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Jude & L Construction, LLC (JLC) of Katy, Texas, protests its non-selection for award of a multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA491125R0002, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for construction services at Prince Sultan Air Base, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. JLC challenges the agency's past performance evaluation and resulting award decision. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Jude & L Construction, LLC File: B-423425 Date: July 3, 2025 Stephen A. Cruz, Esq., Croessmann & Westberg, P.C., for the protester. Sanique J. Balan, Esq., Aaron J. Weaver, Esq., and Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Jesse Jian Adelman and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s past performance as only warranting a rating of “neutral confidence” and the resulting decision not to award the protester a contract is denied. Although the agency unreasonably interpreted the solicitation to prohibit the evaluation of past performance references submitted for the protester’s corporate affiliate, the neutral confidence rating was nevertheless reasonable where the protester failed to ensure that past performance questionnaires for its affiliate’s references were timely submitted to the agency. DECISION Jude & L Construction, LLC (JLC) of Katy, Texas, protests its non-selection for award of a multiple award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA491125R0002, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for construction services at Prince Sultan Air Base, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.[1] JLC challenges the agency’s past performance evaluation and resulting award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was issued on December 10, 2024, and subsequently amended four times, sought proposals for the award of multiple IDIQ contracts to fulfill a recurring need for minor construction and maintenance projects at Prince Sultan Air Base, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. AR, Tab 5, RFP at 1, 5. The RFP contemplated the award of contracts with 5-year ordering periods and an aggregate maximum value of $100,000,000 across all contracts.[2] Id. Awards of the IDIQ contracts were to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering two non-price factors: technical and past performance.[3] AR, Tab 10, RFP, amend. 4, Section M at 1. The RFP contemplated a two-step evaluation process. First, the technical factor, which was to be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, included three subfactors: (i) design package; (ii) progress schedule; and (iii) material/labor breakdown. Id. at 2. Only those proposals evaluated as being technically acceptable would advance to the past performance evaluation phase. Id. at 1. In phase two, offerors’ past performance would be evaluated for recency, relevancy, and quality, and assessed one of the following overall confidence assessments: substantial; satisfactory; neutral; limited; or no confidence. Id. at 3, 5. Relevant here, a substantial confidence rating would be warranted where “[b]ased on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort,” and a neutral confidence rating would be warranted where “[n]o recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record [and] is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.” Id. The RFP further provided that a proposal assigned a neutral confidence rating “may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.” Id. Relevant to the issues presented in the protest, the RFP’s section L proposal instructions provided that “the offeror shall submit Past Performance information for itself as a prime contractor only,” and that “experience performing as a subcontractor will not be considered.” AR, Tab 8, RFP, amend. 3, Section L at 6. The RFP’s section M evaluation criteria also explained that the agency would evaluate the past performance of predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management where the offeror demonstrated that such third party would be meaningfully involved in the resulting contract.