Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Disposition: Protest denied.
In design-build acquisition for construction of new, complete multi-story military housing facility, agency reasonably excluded protester’s proposal from further consideration based on its finding that firm’s experience was limited to renovation, and that it had no experience building such facilities.
General Counsel P.C. Highlight:
CTI asserts that the projects it submitted to demonstrate its experience should have been deemed relevant because, although they were not for the design and construction of a complete new structure, they nonetheless demonstrated its experience in every type of construction activity (such as the construction of a foundation, roofing and reinforced concrete walls) that might be called for in connection with the requirement. The protester points out, in this regard, that the RFP did not expressly state that only the design and construction of a complete new structure would be considered relevant; rather, the RFP provided that the projects only had to be similar, not identical, to the current requirement. GAO states that in considering protests challenging the evaluation of proposals, GAO will not reevaluate proposals; rather, it will examine the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation conclusions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations. While agencies are required to limit their evaluation to the factors stated in the solicitation, they properly may apply evaluation considerations that, while not expressly stated in the solicitation, are nonetheless reasonably and logically encompassed by the stated evaluation factors.
The agency’s evaluation here was unobjectionable. While the solicitation did not expressly state that the agency would limit its consideration to firms with experience in constructing complete, new structures, GAO finds this was reasonably and logically encompassed by the solicitation’s experience factor. The RFP is for the design and construction of a new, multi-story housing facility, and the RFP advised that the agency sought concerns with experience in construction projects similar in scope, size and complexity to the solicited project. GAO concludes that there was nothing unreasonable in the agency’s determining that the projects listed by CTI, which involved only the renovation of preexisting structures, not the ground-up construction of a new facility, was not sufficiently similar in scope, size, and complexity to the ground-up project required here. While CTI may well have experience in the different construction areas involved in the requirement, again, GAO finds that it was reasonable for the agency to conclude that there was a significant qualitative difference between this segmented experience and the desired experience performing a complete ground-up project. There thus is no basis for us to object to the evaluation. The protest is denied.