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."