BNUMBER:  B-276370 
DATE:  June 6, 1997
TITLE: Hunt Building Corporation, B-276370, June 6, 1997
**********************************************************************

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective 
Order.  This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of:Hunt Building Corporation

File:     B-276370

Date:June 6, 1997

James J. McCullough, Esq., and Lawrence E. Ruggiero, Esq., Fried, 
Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for the protester.
Denny Watts for Fletcher Pacific Construction Company, Ltd., an 
intervenor.
Vicki E. O'Keefe, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest allegation that agency improperly assigned identical 
adjectival ratings to protester's and awardee's proposals is denied 
where record shows that materials prepared by agency's technical 
evaluators adequately documented different features offered by each 
firm and conveyed to the source selection official the comparative 
merits of the proposals.

DECISION

Hunt Building Corporation protests the award of a contract to Fletcher 
Pacific Construction Company, Ltd. under request for proposals (RFP) 
No. N62742-95-R-1360, issued by the Department of the Navy for the 
design and construction of military housing units at the Marine Corps 
Base at Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii.  Hunt maintains that the Navy 
misevaluated its and Fletcher's technical proposals.

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract and advised 
that the agency would make award to the firm submitting the proposal 
deemed most advantageous to the government considering numerous 
technical evaluation factors and price, with technical considerations 
deemed more important than price.  The four technical criteria, listed 
in descending order of importance, were building/site design and site 
engineering, added quality of building and site design, offeror's 
qualifications and ability to perform, and offeror's subcontracting 
program/plan.  Proposals were to receive an adjectival rating of 
highly acceptable, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable under each 
criterion.

The Navy received several proposals and, after an initial evaluation, 
established a competitive range of three proposals, including Hunt's 
and Fletcher's.  The agency then engaged in discussions and solicited 
two rounds of best and final offers (BAFO) from the competitive range 
offerors.  After evaluating BAFOs, the agency made award to Fletcher, 
whose proposal was the highest technically rated and lowest priced.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION

Added Quality/Site Design

Under the added quality/site design criterion, proposals were rated 
for offering  seven "desirable," but not mandatory, features listed in 
the RFP in descending order of importance.[1]  Both Hunt's and 
Fletcher's proposals were rated highly acceptable, although the record 
shows that Hunt offered all seven of the features, and Fletcher only 
six.[2]  Hunt maintains that its proposal should have received a 
higher rating because it offered more features.

The evaluation in this area was reasonable.  The RFP provided that the 
highly acceptable rating would be assigned where the agency determined 
that a proposal was "[o]utstanding in essential respects . . . [and] 
exceed[ed] the desired quality, added quality, and performance in the 
solicitation and the excess is beneficial to the Navy."  In contrast, 
the acceptable rating was to be assigned where a proposal ". . . [met] 
all of the requirements specified in the RFP. . . [but] contain[ed] 
few, if any exceptional features, innovations, analyses or 
originality."  The record shows that Fletcher's proposal was rated 
highly acceptable because it satisfied the RFP definition for that 
adjectival rating--it was "outstanding" for offering six of the seven 
features, including those listed as most important, and this excess 
quality was "beneficial" to the agency.  This conclusion clearly was 
consistent with the RFP, and also with the agency's overall evaluation 
approach under this criterion.  In this regard, the record shows that 
proposals offering at least the three features deemed most important 
(duplex units, variation in ceiling height and exterior walls 
constructed of particular materials with a uniform finish) were rated 
highly acceptable, while acceptable ratings were assigned proposals 
offering only two or fewer of the features.  

In any case, Hunt's argument overstates the importance of the 
adjectival ratings in relation to the source selection process.  While 
point or adjectival ratings may be useful as guides to intelligent 
decision-making, they are not binding on the source selection 
official, who has discretion to determine the weight to accord such 
scores in making an award decision.  Porter/Novelli, B-258831, Feb. 
21, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  101 at 4-5.  Of concern to our Office is whether 
the record as a whole supports the reasonableness of the evaluation 
results and source selection decision.  PCL/Am. Bridge, B-254511.2, 
Feb. 24, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  142 at 5-6.  The evaluation record here 
shows that Hunt was credited with offering all seven desirable 
features, and that the source selection official was aware of this 
during his award deliberations.  The source selection official 
ultimately concluded that Fletcher's proposal offered the better 
overall value because of its relative superiority under the more 
important building/site design and site engineering criterion.  (The 
agency's source selection decision is discussed more fully below.)  We 
conclude that there is no basis to question the evaluation in this 
area.[3]  

Offeror Qualifications/Ability to Perform

Hunt maintains that its proposal should have been rated higher than 
Fletcher's under the offeror qualifications/ability to perform 
criterion--both were rated highly acceptable--because it has completed 
more military housing design/build projects in Hawaii than Fletcher 
and its proposed team members possess experience superior to that of 
Fletcher's proposed personnel.

The evaluation in this area was reasonable.  The RFP provided that the 
agency would consider three elements in evaluating proposals under 
this criterion: experience in the construction and/or design of 
similar projects, performance on recently completed projects within 
the past 5 years, and the qualifications of the project team members.  
Contrary to Hunt's allegation, the record shows that, while Hunt's 
experience arguably is more extensive than Fletcher's, the agency 
reasonably rated both firms' proposals highly acceptable.  In this 
regard, both offerors had performed numerous housing construction 
projects--Hunt has been involved in 37 design/build military housing 
projects since 1991, while Fletcher has been involved in 20 housing 
construction projects.  Although Fletcher's listed experience in 
housing construction did not include design/build projects, the RFP 
called for listing both design/build and other construction efforts, 
and Fletcher's proposal did include 13 design/build projects for other 
types of structures.  Both proposals also included performance 
information relating to a similar number of government construction 
projects; that information showed that both firms' performance has 
received highly favorable reviews.  Finally, the record shows that the 
two firms' proposed project teams have similarly qualified personnel, 
and that Fletcher's proposed team has extensive experience in 
design/build military housing projects.  (For example, Fletcher's 
project coordinator listed some 20 military housing projects, its 
project manager was involved in 3 military housing design/build 
projects, and its proposed project superintendent was the same 
individual proposed by Hunt.)

As we concluded with regard to the added quality/site design 
criterion, the evaluation in this area was conducted in accordance 
with the scheme set forth in the RFP.  Proposals such as Hunt's and 
Fletcher's which were found to achieve a certain level of quality 
under this criterion were assigned highly acceptable ratings.  Thus, 
even though, for example, Hunt had performed a greater number of 
design/build military housing projects, Fletcher's level of experience 
also was deemed adequate to achieve a rating of highly acceptable and, 
to the extent that there were differences between the two firms' 
experience in terms of the overall number of projects completed, those 
differences were conveyed to the source selection official in the 
evaluators' narrative materials.  There is nothing in the record to 
suggest--and Hunt has advanced no reason showing--that Fletcher's 
proposal should not have been viewed as highly acceptable given the 
nature and extent of its prior experience.  The source selection 
official was fully aware of the differences in the firms' proposals 
under this criterion and essentially concluded that any relative 
advantage Hunt may have had in this area had little or no value.   
Hunt does not take issue with the accuracy or inclusiveness of the 
information provided to the source selection official.  We conclude 
that there is no basis to question the evaluation in this area.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Hunt objects to the agency's source selection primarily because of its 
view that the agency's evaluation failed to take cognizance of the 
allegedly superior aspects of its proposal in the areas discussed 
above.  In light of what it views as the advantages of its proposal, 
Hunt argues that it was unreasonable for the agency to conclude that 
the Fletcher proposal was superior overall.  The protester maintains 
as well that the record contains no finding that the agency in fact 
preferred the Fletcher proposal over its offer.

Source selection officials enjoy broad discretion in determining the 
manner and extent to which they will make use of the cost and 
technical evaluation results; in exercising this discretion, they are 
subject only to the test of rationality and consistency with the RFP's 
stated evaluation and award criteria.  Juarez & Assocs., Inc., 
B-265950.2, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  152 at 3-4.

The source selection decision was reasonable.  As discussed above, 
Hunt's arguments provide no basis for questioning the evaluation; both 
proposals were properly rated highly acceptable under the criteria in 
question, and the source selection official was presented with 
detailed information regarding the proposals' merits.  The evaluators 
preferred Fletcher's technical proposal notwithstanding any arguable 
advantages of the Hunt proposal under the criteria in question because 
of Fletcher's higher rating under the most important building/site 
design and site engineering criterion.  The source selection official 
concurred in the evaluators' conclusion, stating in the source 
selection document that:

     "[DELETED]."

The source selection document goes on to outline some of the other 
design features offered by Fletcher that, ultimately, were preferred 
by the agency including, for example, its greater variety of 
floorplans, the fact that the kitchen was hidden from the line of 
sight upon entry to the houses, the superior configuration of the 
family area that allowed good furniture placement, and the fact that 
the family area was separate from the living/dining room area.  Hunt 
has not established that the agency's preference for Fletcher's 
proposal on this basis was unreasonable.  Given 
the relative importance of the evaluation criteria, the agency's 
properly documented  evaluation conclusions, and Fletcher's overall 
lower price, there is no basis to object to the award decision.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Offerors could propose the following features:  duplex units; a 
variation in ceiling heights in living, dining and family rooms; 
exterior walls constructed of particular materials with an exterior 
finish that was uniform for both the first and second floors; metal or 
aluminum standing seam, or clay, or concrete tile roofing; acrylic 
kitchen counter tops; fabric vertical blinds; and building materials 
and equipment that exceeded the RFP's requirements for durability, 
maintainability and warranty terms.

2. Although there is some dispute regarding the number of items 
offered by Fletcher,  our review shows that Fletcher's proposal 
included six of the seven:  duplex units; variation in ceiling height; 
acrylic kitchen countertops; fabric vertical blinds; the material and 
equipment proposed exceeds the RFP's requirements; and a uniform 
finish for first and second floor exterior walls that will be 
constructed of the materials specified in the RFP.

3. Hunt maintains that its proposal improperly was not credited with 
offering fabric window blinds and higher quality building materials 
and equipment.  However, the evaluators' score sheets show that they 
did credit Hunt with these features.  In any case, since (1) Hunt's 
proposal was assigned the highest adjectival rating available under 
this criterion, (2) the two features in issue were the least important 
of the seven desirable features, and (3) the source selection 
ultimately turned on Fletcher's superiority under a more important 
criterion, there is no reason to believe that the evaluation of these 
two features would have affected the award decision.