BNUMBER:  B-265746
DATE:  November 22, 1995
TITLE:  Cavalier Corporation

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Cavalier Corporation

File:     B-265746

Date:     November 22, 1995

Warren J. Riddle for the protester.
Elizabeth L. Kruger, Esq., General Services Administration, for the 
agency.
Adam Vodraska, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Award to lower-rated, lower-priced offeror was proper where 
solicitation's evaluation criteria gave predominant weight to 
technical factors, and source selection officials reasonably 
determined that protester's higher-rated, higher-priced proposal 
offered no significant technical advantages worth the cost premium.

DECISION

Cavalier Corporation protests the award of a contract to Advanced 
Radiation Technologies, Inc. by the General Services Administration 
(GSA) under request for proposals (RFP) 10PM3-95-21, for the design 
and installation of a radon mitigation system at the United States 
Courthouse, Spokane, Washington.

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract to the 
offeror submitting the greatest value proposal for the design and 
installation of a radon mitigation system for lowering elevated levels 
of radon gas in the sub-basement of the Courthouse.  The RFP informed 
prospective offerors that previous attempts at radon mitigation, such 
as sealing the sub-basement floor and the constant operation of the 
sub-basement's ventilation system, failed to reduce radon to 
acceptable levels.  GSA "anticipated that the only remaining solution 
for mitigating the elevated radon levels is to install a sub-slab 
ventilation system in the sub-basement in conjunction with positive 
pressurization of the sub-basement."   

The Courthouse is a nine-story building with underground levels 
including the sub-basement, which is the lowest level in the building.  
Sub-slab ventilation involves drilling holes at various locations 
through the floor of the sub-basement's concrete slab and connecting 
pipes to the holes.  These pipes in turn are connecting to another 
pipe or duct which exits the building.  An exhaust fan is connected at 
the exterior outlet of the piping, which operates to de-pressurize the 
sub-slab ventilation system, producing a suction that draws the radon 
through the pipes and out of the building.  Sub-slab ventilation is 
effective if the pressure under the slab can be maintained below that 
of the space being mitigated so as to draw the radon into the 
collection system and prevent it from seeping into the space above.[1]

The RFP notified offerors that design of the system shall be subject 
of review and approval by GSA before the system is installed, and all 
necessary changes and/or corrections to the design resulting from GSA 
review comments shall be made at no additional cost to the agency.  As 
amended, the RFP also stated that 

        "[d]ue to the inherent difficulties and associated costs of a 
        roof discharge for the ventilation system alternatives to a 
        roof discharge will be considered, provided they meet 
        applicable building codes." (Emphasis in original.)

Three firms submitted timely offers, including the protester and the 
awardee.  Cavalier proposed a sub-slab ventilation system--that would 
discharge the radon through the roof of the building--for $61,333.[2]  
Advanced's proposal offered a sub-slab ventilation system--that would 
discharge the radon through a pre-existing radon mitigation system at 
the adjoining Post Office building--for $37,615.  

The RFP stated that technical quality was more important than cost or 
price, but that as proposals become more equal in their technical 
merit, the evaluated cost or price would become more important.  A 
two-member source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated 
proposals based on the following technical evaluation factors (and 
relative weights):  experience in performing similar work (35 
percent), technical approach (30 percent), understanding of the work 
required (20 percent), and qualifications of key personnel (15 
percent).  The SSEB evaluated offerors' technical proposals based on a 
10-point scale for each evaluation category and for an overall 
consensus score.[3]  

Cavalier's initial proposal received the highest overall score of 8.15 
points, while Advanced's initial proposal received the second highest 
overall score of 5.55 points.  The SSEB then sent written discussion 
questions to each offeror; in light of the responses, the proposals 
were reevaluated by the SSEB.  The SSEB increased Advanced's overall 
technical score to 7.00 points based on this reevaluation, but did not 
change Cavalier's score.  Only two of the three offerors--Cavalier and 
Advanced--submitted best and final offers (BAFO).  Cavalier's price 
remained $61,333 but Advanced lowered its price to $36,220.  

The SSEB concluded that Advanced's proposal clearly met or exceeded 
the RFP's requirements; that although Advanced's proposal was not 
technically the highest rated overall, the difference in Advanced's 
and Cavalier's technical scores was not significant; and that the 
advantages offered by Cavalier's proposal were not worth its 
significantly higher price.  As a result, the SSEB recommended award 
to Advanced on the basis that its proposal represented the best value 
to the government.  Based upon the SSEB's recommendation, the SSA 
awarded the contract to Advanced.

The crux of Cavalier's protest is that GSA gave undue weight to 
Advanced's low price, without regard for Cavalier's technical 
superiority, despite the fact that technical factors were to be more 
significant than price.

In a negotiated procurement, an agency may make award to a 
lower-priced, lower technically rated offeror if it determines that 
the price premium involved in awarding to a higher technically rated, 
higher-priced offeror is not justified given the acceptable level of 
technical competence obtainable at the lower price.  Best Temporaries, 
Inc., B-255677.3, May 13, 1994, 94-1 CPD  308.  Source selection 
officials have the discretion to make cost/technical tradeoffs and the 
extent of such tradeoffs is governed only by the test of rationality 
and consistency with the  evaluation criteria.  Power Conversion, 
Inc., B-239301, Aug. 20, 1990, 90-2 CPD  145.  Even if price or cost 
is the least important factor, an agency properly may award to a 
lower-priced, lower-rated offer.  The determining element is not the 
difference in technical merit, per se, but the reasonableness of the 
source selection official's judgment concerning the significance of 
that difference and the consistency of this judgment with the RFP 
evaluation scheme.  Best Temporaries, Inc., supra.

The record shows that GSA performed a reasonable cost/technical 
tradeoff between Advanced's lower-rated, lower-priced proposal and 
Cavalier's higher-rated, higher-priced proposal.  While Cavalier 
complains that the SSEB did not sufficiently recognize Cavalier's 
superiority under the experience and qualifications categories, the 
record shows otherwise.  The SSEB rated Cavalier's proposal 9 points 
for experience and a perfect 10 points for qualifications while rating 
Advanced's proposal 6 points for both categories.  The SSEB rated 
Advanced's proposal slightly higher (8 points) than Cavalier's 
proposal (7 points) for both the technical approach and understanding 
of the work categories, which also were worth 50 percent of the total 
score.  GSA ultimately determined, however, that Cavalier's higher 
overall rating, based on its superior experience and qualifications, 
did not mean that Cavalier would necessarily provide a more effective 
radon mitigation system than Advanced, which received a higher score 
for technical approach and understanding of the work required.  In 
light of this fact, the SSA determined that Cavalier's proposal 
overall technical superiority simply was not worth its approximately 
40 percent higher price.  This determination was in no way outside the 
bounds of the RFP's evaluation scheme.  

Cavalier also suggests that Advanced's technical approach may not be 
feasible or acceptable.  This argument is without merit.  The major 
differences between Cavalier's and Advanced's proposals are where the 
radon will be discharged and how the necessary de-pressurization of 
the sub-slab ventilation system will be maintained.  Cavalier planned 
to install a sub-slab ventilation system that would generate 
sufficient de-pressurization so as to obviate the need to pressurize 
the sub-basement area above the slab; because this approach would 
necessitate installing piping from the sub-basement ventilation system 
through a mechanical chase running the entire height of the nine-story 
building, this was by far the most expensive method.  As invited by 
the RFP, Advanced proposed a less expensive alternate method of 
connecting the sub-slab ventilation system constructed in the 
Courthouse to the radon mitigation system it previously designed in 
the adjoining Post Office building, which, according to Advanced, has 
adequate capacity to handle the gas discharged from the Courthouse.[4]  

The record shows that the agency carefully considered and evaluated 
Advanced's approach.  Although the SSEB initially expressed concern 
with Advanced's proposed method of discharging the radon through the 
Post Office, these concerns were answered to the satisfaction of the 
SSEB by Advanced's responses to the discussion questions, and the SSEB 
considered Advanced's proposed method a viable approach.[5]  For 
example, in conjunction with its sub-slab ventilation system, Advanced 
proposed to utilize an existing component of the Courthouse's heating, 
ventilation, and air conditioning system--namely, the mechanical room 
exhaust fan--to pressurize the sub-basement to help draw the radon 
into the sub-slab ventilation system.[6]  There is nothing in the 
record which supports Cavalier's speculation as to the feasibility of 
Advanced's approach, and since it is clear that the agency evaluated 
it in accordance with the evaluation scheme, this speculation is not a 
basis for taking exception to the award.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States 

1. A potential problem with this method of mitigation in a high-rise 
building is the "stack effect" of the building, namely, that the 
de-pressurizing "pull" of the building, such as the "chimney effect" 
of rising heat in the winter, will overcome the pressure differentials 
between the sub-basement and the ventilation system.

2. The government estimate for a system discharging radon through the 
Courthouse roof was $47,124.

3. For example, under GSA's scoring plan, a score of 5 to 7 points 
indicated that the proposal met the required standard; a score of 8 to 
9 points indicated that the proposal was superior in several ways and 
generally exceeded the required standard.  

4. Advanced's proposal discussed the possibility of venting through 
the Courthouse roof, as was proposed by Cavalier, but stated that 
"because of cost alone" it could not recommend this means of disposing 
of the radon.

5. While Cavalier contends that Advanced's proposed method of 
discharging the radon through the Post Office presents possible 
electrical and fire code problems, compliance with applicable building 
codes is required by the RFP and there is no indication in Advanced's 
proposal that it will not comply.

6. Contrary to Cavalier's speculation, Advanced does not propose to 
add more ventilation air or more air for pressurization.  Advanced's 
proposal is consistent with the RFP which states "that the only 
remaining solution for mitigating the elevated radon levels is to 
install a sub-slab ventilation system in the sub-basement in 
conjunction with positive pressurization of the sub-basement."