Protest objecting to the terms of a solicitation seeking roofing services is denied. The protester complained that the procurement was improperly conducted as a two-phase design-build project, when it was only really a build project. GAO found that the agency reasonably procured the work as a design-build project because it had received donated building without design documents. The protester complained that various aspects of the solicitation were unduly restrictive, but GAO found that the restrictions were all reasonable. The protester objected to the evaluation criteria, complaining that the solicitation did identify adjectival ratings. GAO, however, reasoned that a solicitation need not identify adjectival ratings so long as the underlying evaluation scheme relates to the agency’s needs.
The Department of Veterans Affairs issued an RFP for a reroofing project at a medical center in Texas. The RFP was set aside for service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses. Before the proposal deadline, Betty Foster Roofing filed a protest challenging the terms of the solicitation.
Better Foster complained that the VA was improperly conducting the procurement as a two-phase design and build project. Betty Foster contended that this was a simple reroofing project that did not require design work and could be performed by an experienced commercial roofer.
GAO noted that FAR 36.104 sets forth the factors an agency must consider in deciding whether the to use a two phase design-build procedure. Here, the record showed that that the agency had considered these factors and adequately explained why a design-build was appropriate. Specifically, the buildings that needed new roofs had been donated to the VA. The agency did not have any blueprints, engineering documents, or historical records for the buildings. Given the absence of information, the VA reasonably sought a design-build contract to create designs for the building.
Betty Foster alleged that the RFP was unduly restrictive. The solicitation stated that the VA would not consider past performance from subcontractors. Betty Foster believed this requirement effectively forced offeror without architectural or engineering capabilities to form a joint venture with another architectural or engineering firm. A joint venture was the only way a firm without architecture and engineering capabilities could get the agency to consider architecture and engineering services as part of the past performance evaluation.
Although an RFP’s evaluation criteria may prevent firms from obtaining positive past performance ratings, that did not mean the criteria are unduly restrictive. Here, the solicitation simply restricted the consideration of past performance to the prime contractor, that is, the firm that would be in privity with the government. It is reasonable for an agency to reduce the risk of inadequate performance by requiring that any team member qualify as a prime contractor so they have privity with the agency. Firms in privity with the government will be obligated to perform in accordance with the specifications. The decision to limit the evaluation of past performance to the prime contractor was unobjectionable.
Betty Foster further objected to the relevancy criteria under the past performance factor, which defined a relevant project as a construction project on a clinical, hospital, or medical-related space. Betty Foster alleged that there was no rational basis for excluding past performance projects on other types of buildings. The replacement of a roof was unrelated to the type of work performed under the roof.
But GAO found that the because the VA was converting this buildings from non-medical to medical use, and because there were no historical blueprints for the buildings, the agency reasonably added this requirement to ensure that the specific site was integrated into a clinical space.
Betty Foster alleged the RFP lacked sufficient details regarding the evaluation of key personnel. The RFP required the submission of resumes for key personnel and required offerors to describe experience and qualifications of the personnel, but it failed to include any objective standards under which the agency would evaluate key personnel.
GO did not believe this was a problem. The decision to not specify the required education level or minimum years of experience was not improper given that the requirements for each position were clearly defined in the solicitation. This gave offerors enough information compete intelligently.
Lastly, Better Foster complained that while the solicitation provided that offerors would be assigned adjectival ratings for their phase I proposals, the solicitation did not identify those ratings. GAO, however, reasoned that agencies have broad discretion in selecting evaluation factors. GAO will not object to the absence or presence of a particular evaluation factor so long as the factors relate to the agency’s needs. Here, regardless of the absence of adjectival ratings, the evaluation factors were reasonable.
Betty Foster Roofing, LLC is represented by Betty Foster. The agency is represented by Deborah K. Morrell and Jennifer Smith of the Department of Veterans Affairs. GAO attorneys Paula A. Williams and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.
