BNUMBER: B-271879.2
DATE: October 31, 1996
TITLE: Trataros Construction, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Trataros Construction, Inc.
File: B-271879.2
Date:October 31, 1996
Costas N. Trataros for the protester.
Richard P. Castiglia, Jr., Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the
agency.
Robert Arsenoff, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Proposal that received less than acceptable ratings in 13 of 17
evaluation areas was properly eliminated from the competitive range
where the agency reasonably determined that in order to be rated
acceptable, the proposal would have to be substantially rewritten.
DECISION
Trataros Construction, Inc. protests the decision of the Department of
the Air Force to eliminate its proposal from the competitive range
under request for proposals (RFP) No. F28609-95-R0004 for a Simplified
Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) contract at
McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey.[1]
We deny the protest.
The RFP was issued on February 14, 1996. Award was to be made to the
offeror whose proposal was determined to be the most advantageous to
the government considering technical/management factors and cost, with
technical/management factors identified as more important. Five
technical management factors, which were subdivided into subfactors,
were listed in descending order of importance: project
development/planning and minimal design; project management ability;
subcontracting and support capability; project execution and technical
capability; and experience and past and present performance. Each
subfactor was to be rated on a color-coded scale[2] and given a risk
rating. Technical/management proposals were limited to 75 pages and
the RFP cautioned offerors that incomplete submissions could be
rejected without evaluation. Offerors were also cautioned that
unrealistically low cost proposals could be rejected without further
evaluation.
Eleven offerors responded by the March 27 closing date. Trataros's
proposal was rated as followed:
Factor/Subfactor Rating Risk Necessary Revisions
1. Development, Planning, Design
a. Minimal Design
b. Development/Planning
Red
Red
High
High
Major
Complete
2. Management Ability
a. Startup/Contingencies
b. Key Management Staff
c. Quality Control (QC) Plan
d. Support/Interface/Staff
e. Financial Resources
f. Warranty and Punchlist Resources
Red
Yellow
Yellow
Green
Green
Red
High
Low
High
Low
Low
High
Complete
Minor
Moderate
None
None
Major
3. Subcontracting Support Capability
a. Purchasing System/ Support Level
b. Subcontract Management
c. I.D. of Key Subs and Suppliers
Red
Yellow
Red
High
Moderate
Moderate
Major
Moderate
Major4. Execution and Tech.
Capability
a. Key Support Staff
b. Demonstration Level- of-Effort
c. Demonstration Alternatives
d. (No offers were evaluated under this
subfactor.)
e. Demonstration Price Completeness
Yellow
Red
Red
Red
Low
High
High
High
Major
Major
Major
Major
5. Experience/Performance
a. Recent Construction Experience
b. Recent Construction Management
Experience
Green
Green
Low
Low
None
None
In addition, Trataros's cost proposal was found to be unacceptable
because it did not provide sufficient information regarding
mobilization and demobilization expenses, bond premiums or a
proportional share of home office overhead. The agency also found
that Trataros failed to adequately explain and support the price
coefficients set forth in its proposal; the Air Force states that
these deficiencies were particularly troublesome because Trataros's
estimate of demonstration project costs was 60-percent lower than the
government's estimate and substantially below the estimates of other
offerors. Based on the technical/management review and the cost
proposal review, the Air Force concluded that major revisions were
required to make Trataros's offer acceptable and consequently
eliminated the offer from the competitive range.[3] The competitive
range determination was documented in summary fashion on April 15, and
by letter of April 18, Trataros was informed of the general reasons
for the decision. This protest followed.
Trataros takes exception, in whole or in part, to all of the
deficiencies noted by the agency. Further, Trataros asserts that only
the reasons set forth in the April 15 determination document may be
considered in our analysis of the agency's evaluation, notwithstanding
the fact that the agency presented its full rationale for the
exclusion of the protester's proposal in its report on the protest.
Trataros also argues that, notwithstanding deficiencies in its
proposal, the agency should have included the proposal in the
competitive range because of Trataros's successful past performance on
similar contracts with other Air Force bases and the United States
Military Academy.
Prior to considering the challenges to the Air Force's evaluation, we
note that Trataros is incorrect in its assertion that the agency may
not be permitted an opportunity to present all of the reasons for its
competitive range determination during the protest process. While
agencies must document the basis for their evaluation and award
decisions, the fact that the documentation was not contained in the
contemporaneous procurement file but is furnished as part of the
record in response to a protest does not preclude our consideration of
it in determining the reasonableness of the agency's actions.
Criterion Corp., B-266050, Jan. 23, 1996,
96-1 CPD para. 217. Here, the details of the agency's analysis were
clearly spelled out in the report submitted for our review in response
to the protester's allegations; in such circumstances, we will review
the entire record to determine whether the agency acted reasonably in
its evaluation of offers.
Also as a preliminary matter, we note that Trataros's argument that
the competitive range determination should have been based on its
successful performance history on other contracts is without merit.
No matter how competent a contractor may be, an agency properly may
base its technical evaluation on the information provided in an
offeror's proposal in response to the requirements set forth in the
solicitation. Eastern Technical Enters., Inc., B-259844, May 8, 1995,
95-1 CPD para. 232.
The evaluation of proposals and the determination of whether a
proposal is in the competitive range are principally matters within
the contracting agency's discretion, since agencies are responsible
for defining their needs and for deciding the best method of meeting
them. Thus, it is not the function of this Office to evaluate
proposals de novo and we will not disturb a determination absent a
showing that it was unreasonable. Atlantic Coast Contracting, Inc.,
B-270645.2, May 24, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 252. A protester's mere
disagreement with an agency's evaluation does not, without more,
establish that the evaluation was unreasonable. Keco Indus., Inc.,
B-261159, Aug. 25, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 85.
Our review of the record of the evaluation and the protester's
arguments discloses no basis for disturbing the competitive range
determination. As the following examples reveal, the protester has at
best shown mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation of its
proposal.
The proposal instructions for subfactor 2c instructed offerors to
provide a summary QC plan which would later be incorporated into a
formal QC plan. Specifically, the RFP stated that the "summary plan
should be broad enough to address all aspects of quality control to
include responsibility for surveillance of work, number of active
projects assigned to each quality control technician, acceptance,
rejection, documentation, trend analysis and corrective action, and
interface with Government inspectors." The agency rated the
protester's QC plan as marginal requiring moderate revision because it
failed to discuss trend analysis and the number of delivery orders per
inspector and did not adequately discuss government interface except
to say that daily logs would be provided to the contracting officer's
representative.
Trataros does not dispute the specific findings. Rather, the
protester asserts that all that was required was a "summary" plan and
that its plan was sufficient. Trataros also states that it was
precluded from providing any more detail because of the 75-page
limitation on the length of technical proposals. The protester's
reading of the word "summary," however, ignores the detailed
description of what was required, and since it does not dispute the
evaluation findings, we have no basis to question the evaluation.
Moreover, as other offerors were able to submit adequate proposals
within the RFP's page limitation, we are unpersuaded that the
protester was hindered by that limitation. See Telemechanics, Inc.,
B-229748, Mar. 24, 1988, 88-1 CPD para. 304.
The proposal instructions for subfactor 3c required offerors to
"provide specific identification of proposed key subcontractors and
suppliers for each major function/discipline in accordance with R.S.
MEANS. Provide a brief resume of each . . . including experience. .
. ." The agency rated Trataros's proposal as unacceptable for this
subfactor, with major revisions required, because Trataros did not
identify the subcontractors' and suppliers' functions and did not
describe their experience. Trataros states that it did not include
experience in its proposal because of the page limitation and argues
that the firms' functions should be evident from their trade names.
Thus, all the record reflects is the protester's disagreement with the
evaluators and a misplaced reliance on the page limitation rather than
any impropriety in the evaluation.
Under the Project Execution and Technical Capability factor (Factor
4), offerors were to submit, inter alia, one or more design concepts,
a list of assumptions used to develop those design concepts, a list of
priced items, simple design drawings, material submittals, an
estimated time frame necessary to start and finish the demonstration
project, and an overall proposal of project execution. Under
subfactors 4b and 4c Trataros's proposal was rated unacceptable and in
need of major revision because it failed to provide any mathematical
support for its proposed solution, failed to list assumptions and
failed to identify alternative solutions. Trataros concedes that it
failed to list assumptions and again refers to the RFP page
limitation; Trataros does not comment on the other findings. Again,
we see no basis to disturb the evaluation.
The RFP instructions regarding cost proposals required offerors to
provide detailed financial information in support of proposed cost
coefficients including, mobilization and demobilization expenses,
bond premiums and a proportional share of home office overhead. The
agency found the cost proposal submitted by the protester to be
unacceptable for a failure to provide the above-listed information.
Trataros does not address these specific findings and merely asserts
that it has supplied adequate cost information to the Air Force which,
again, provides no basis to disturb the evaluation.
As the foregoing examples reflect, the Air Force had a reasonable
basis for excluding Trataros's proposal from the competitive range on
the grounds that it received unacceptable ratings for a majority of
the listed evaluation subfactors and required major revision to become
acceptable. Trataros argues that the Air Force should have,
nonetheless, kept the proposal in the competitive range in view of its
"fair and reasonable price." This contention is misplaced since an
agency may properly exclude a technically unacceptable proposal from
the competitive range irrespective of the price offered. Systems
Planning & Analysis, Inc., B-261857.2, Nov. 9, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 218.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
Of the United States
1. We previously dismissed Trataros's protest for failure to file
comments on the agency report or request an extension within 14
calendar days after receipt of the report as required by our Bid
Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.3(h) (1996). At Trataros's request
we subsequently investigated our Office mail logs and confirmed that
the protester had in fact filed timely comments with our Office which
inadvertently had not been forwarded to the cognizant location. Under
these circumstances, we will consider the merits of the protest.
2. Blue (exceptional); green (acceptable); yellow (marginal); red
(unacceptable).
3. Trataros's offer was one of five eliminated from the competitive
range.