BNUMBER:  B-277063.3 
DATE:  July 6, 1998
TITLE: Tri-J Contractors, B-277063.3, July 6, 1998
**********************************************************************

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:Tri-J Contractors

File:     B-277063.3

Date:July 6, 1998

J. William Bennett, Esq., for the protester.
Sam Zalman Gdanski, Esq., for Tri-State Company, an intervenor.
Alan Groesbeck, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.
M. Penny Ahearn, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

In procurement where technical merit was to be more important than 
cost, agency properly selected higher-rated, higher-cost proposal 
where agency reasonably evaluated awardee's proposal as significantly 
superior to protester's, and source selection official reasonably 
determined that technical merit of awardee's proposal outweighed 
protester's slight cost advantage.   

DECISION

Tri-J Contractors protests the award of a contract to Tri-State 
Company, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. R8-08-97-2, issued 
by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, for flood damage 
repair of the Cascades Trail located in the George Washington and 
Jefferson National Forests, Giles County, Virginia.  The protester 
complains that the Forest Service improperly evaluated proposals and 
conducted an improper best value analysis.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, which contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, 
requested proposals for the construction/reconstruction of four trail 
bridges and abutments, as well as trails.  The required work included 
removal of existing bridges, construction of treated timber 
glue-laminated bridges, clearing, excavation, rock steps, rock 
waterbars, rock masonry, mortared stone work with rebar base, rock 
demolition, movement of large rocks, rock sign installation, and log 
cribbing and benches.  The solicitation permitted alternate proposals 
and provided for evaluation of proposals on the basis of the following 
technical evaluation factors (and possible points out of a total of 
100):  (1) experience of prime contractor in Forest Service trail and 
foot bridge construction in remote locations with limited vehicle 
access (40 points); 
(2) feasibility of contractor's technical proposal and equipment 
availability 
(25 points); (3) experience of superintendents, foremen, and crew in 
trail and bridge construction, including experience in similar 
contracts in working in remote locations with helicopters and limited 
vehicle access (15 points); (4) for alternate proposals, description 
of construction materials and methods of construction to be used 
including transportation of materials to the site (10 points); and (5) 
logical sequence of work and approximate calendar days for each phase 
(progress schedule) (10 points).  RFP at 116 and 117.  The RFP 
provided that cost would be secondary to technical considerations and 
that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal presents the 
technical/cost relationship most advantageous to the government.  RFP 
at 116.

Of the six offers received, three were determined to be in the 
competitive range.  The agency initially made award to Tri-State but, 
following a protest by Tri-J to our Office (B-277063, B-277063.3), the 
Forest Service took corrective action; it opened discussions with 
competitive range offerors, sending them letters listing deficiencies 
(including negative past performance reference comments), and then 
requested best and final offers (BAFO).  After receipt and evaluation 
of BAFOs, including responses to the negative references, the agency 
reevaluated and rescored the proposals.  Tri-State's proposal received 
the highest technical score, 86 points, and offered the second lowest 
price, $248,869.  Tri-J's proposal received the second highest 
technical score, 66 points, and offered the low price, $246,490.  The 
agency determined that the technical superiority of Tri-State's 
proposal--particularly in the areas of demonstrated experience on all 
required work, excellent references, proposed logical sequencing of 
work, and understanding of site limitations/contract 
restrictions--outweighed the protester's $2,379 price advantage and 
provided the best value to the government.  Award to Tri-State was 
reconfirmed on March 10, 1998.  This protest followed.    

The protester argues that the agency evaluated proposals with 
undisclosed criteria, ignored information submitted in its proposal, 
and otherwise misevaluated proposals.  According to the protester, its 
proposal should have received a score equal to the awardee's, which 
would have resulted in award to it based on its low  price.  

In reviewing a protest against an agency's evaluation of proposals, we 
will examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was 
reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.  ESCO, 
Inc., B-225565, Apr. 29, 1987,    87-1 CPD  para.  450 at 7.  We have 
examined the evaluation here and conclude that it was both reasonable 
and consistent with the evaluation criteria.  We discuss some key 
areas of the evaluation below.  

EXPERIENCE EVALUATION

Recent Experience

Under the experience of the prime contractor factor, Tri-J's proposal 
received 
30 out of the 40 possible points, and, under the experience of 
superintendents, foremen, and crew factor, 11 of the 15 possible 
points.  In contrast, the awardee's proposal received 36 and 13 
points, respectively, under the two factors.  Tri-J complains that its 
proposal improperly was downgraded based on consideration of the 
amount of recent experience on every line item of required work which, 
it claims, was an undisclosed evaluation factor.

We do not agree that recent and/or similar experience were undisclosed 
factors.  Beyond the requirement that offerors furnish information on 
its and its superintendents', foremen's, and crew's experience, RFP  sec.  
M.2 at 116, the solicitation required offerors to list the names and 
proposed duties of their proposed professional personnel, consultants, 
and key subcontractor employees, and stated that "[t]heir resumes 
should be included and should contain information on . . . recent work 
experience . . . ."  RFP  sec.  L.14(b)(4) at 108 (emphasis added).  The 
RFP also stated that "[t]he technical proposal must provide the 
general background, experience and qualifications of the 
organization," and that "[s]imilar or related contracts, subcontracts, 
and/or grants should be included . . . ."  RFP  sec.  L.14(b)(5) at 108 
(emphasis added).  The requirement for this recent and similar 
experience information for both the offeror and its employees should 
have put Tri-J on notice that the evaluation under the two experience 
evaluation factors would extend to such experience.  

In any case, an agency may assess offerors' experience differently 
based on differences in the mix of the offerors' experience, even if 
the basis for the different assessment was not expressly identified in 
the solicitation, so long as that basis is logically encompassed by or 
related to the stated evaluation criteria, Counter Tech., Inc., 
B-260853, July 20, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  39 at 4, and we think that the 
recency and similarity of experience are obviously encompassed by even 
the most generic experience criterion.  This is because the recency 
and similarity of a firm's experience logically could reflect the 
extent to which a firm's experience will be predictive of the firm's 
performance on the contract to be awarded.  Since recent and similar 
experience clearly is related to the evaluation factors aimed at 
assessing offerors' (and their personnel's) experience, even had the 
RFP not contained adequate references to recent and similar 
experience, it would have been a proper basis for distinguishing 
between proposals.

The agency reasonably evaluated Tri-State's proposal as superior to 
Tri-J's under the experience factors.  The evaluators noted as a 
strength the protester's 32 years of experience in trail and bridge 
construction, including excellent experience in prefabricated bridge 
construction, as well as related helicopter experience.  However, they 
also noted as a weakness/deficiency the absence of similar and/or 
recent experience in two required work areas--rock/stone work and 
fitted round pole (hand) rail construction.  The rock/stone work 
deficiency was of particular concern to the evaluators because, based 
on the government estimate, 45 percent of the contract work would 
involve rock/stone work.  The evaluators determined that Tri-J's 
proposal indicated limited rock/stone work experience, none of which 
was recent (i.e., since 1986); presented photographic stone work 
examples that were not impressive; provided limited information 
regarding the firm's crew and other specialty workers, including stone 
masons; and made little reference to the moving of rock.  
Additionally, the protester's one stone work reference indicated 
problems with the quality of work, including sloppy work on stone 
steps, and none of the protester's references indicated experience 
with equipment used to move large rocks.[1]  The fitted round pole 
rail construction experience weakness was based on the protester's 
references and photographs included in Tri-J's proposal.     

While the protester's experience scores reflected satisfactory 
experience, Tri-State's proposal received higher scores based on its 
recent experience with all line items of work and its performance of 
five contracts within the project area within the last 
10 years.  Tri-State's proposal was evaluated as demonstrating 
"excellent work experience in similar contracts," "demonstrated work 
experience on all bid items," "with photo and narrative 
documentation," and "documented excellent quality stone work."  
Evaluation Narrative and Appendices at 4 and 30.  Tri-J does not 
challenge these conclusions.  We conclude that the agency reasonably 
evaluated the proposals under the experience factors.
 
Stone Masons

Tri-J further asserts that the agency improperly failed to consider 
all of its experience information.  For example, it maintains that its 
proposed plan to hire journeymen stone masons was ignored, and that 
its proposal then actually was downgraded for failing to include 
resumes for the stone masons, which were not required by the 
solicitation (since they were not professional personnel, consultants 
or key subcontractor employees for whom the RFP required resumes).  

There is no evidence that the agency ignored information in Tri-J's 
proposal, and we find that the agency reasonably downgraded the 
proposal based on the protester's failure to provide adequate 
information.  Specifically, with regard to stone masons, the proposal 
stated that "[t]his item is probably one of the most critical of all 
items," "[w]e will bring in journeyman rock masons," "[t]hese 
technicians did the rock work for us at New River Gorge (pages 15-16 
of our picture presentation)," "[t]hey did a beautiful job," and 
"[p]lease excuse our picture quality in the dark canyon."  Tri-J 
Proposal at 14.  The proposal did not identify the proposed stone 
masons, and the indicated experience consisted of only one project of 
indeterminate quality.  The proposal included only two photographs of 
stone masonry--a wall in progress (that appears to include 
rebar)--which because of shadows is essentially unviewable.  Further, 
in the protester's listed reference for this project, no mention was 
made of stone masonry.  Tri-J was on notice of the agency's finding 
that the information in this area was deficient based on the following 
discussion question:  "As required by Section L.14(b)(4) of the 
solicitation, you must provide information on personnel and key 
subcontractor employees assigned to the project[;] your proposal as 
submitted does not include this information."  Discussion Question No. 
6 at 2.[2]  An offeror has the burden of submitting an adequately 
written proposal for the agency to evaluate.  Premier Cleaning Sys., 
Inc., B-255815, Apr. 6, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  241 at 5.  In light of 
Tri-J's failure to provide adequate information regarding its proposed 
stone masons and their work experience, the agency reasonably 
concluded that the protester's proposal presented minimal experience 
in this area.

In contrast, the awardee's proposal indicated that the two principals 
of the prime contractor (the president and field supervisor) would be 
performing the mortared stone work and submitted evidence of similar 
past contracts along with numerous photographs of their mortared stone 
work experience.  Additionally, references indicated that the work was 
of high quality, which the agency confirmed from the submitted 
photographs.  The record thus shows that the proposals differed 
materially in this area, and this difference provided a reasonable 
basis for the agency to distinguish between the two proposals in the 
evaluation.[3]     

WORK SEQUENCE

Under this factor, offerors were to "[i]ndicate the logical sequence 
of work and approximate calendar days for each phase (progress 
schedule)."  In regards to work scheduling, the specifications 
provided that (1) no construction could take place in the Little Stony 
Creek during the spawning season of native trout, which runs between 
October 1 and May 1, and (2) no stone construction, including rock 
masonry, could be done in freezing weather.  RFP Specifications  sec.  
104, 930 at 12 and 67.

Tri-J received 4 of the 10 available points for its proposal to start 
work at the beginning of the trail and continue to the end, building 
abutments along the way and installing bridges last.  As for its 
progress schedule, Tri-J advised the agency that "[w]ith the start 
date not stipulated, it is impossible to make a proposed progress 
schedule due to the spawning season and winter weather," and that a 
progress schedule would be provided "as soon as we know when the start 
work date is."  Response to Discussion Questions at 9 and 10.  The 
protester did include a proposed number of calendar days for each line 
item of work.  Id. at 10.

The evaluators determined that Tri-J's proposal to start at one end of 
the trail and proceed to the other end did not present a logical 
sequence of work, because of the need to accomplish several items of 
work at certain times of the year due to the trout spawning and 
freezing weather limitations.  The evaluators concluded that 
Tri-J had not demonstrated an awareness of the need to work within 
these limitations.

In contrast, Tri-State's proposal received 8 of the 10 available 
points for its proposed critical path diagramed work plan, which 
provided estimated total work days for two work cycles separated by a 
probable winter shutdown.  Tri-State Proposal at 15.  Details about 
each cycle of work and the specific work affected by the trout 
spawning season were identified, and the weather also was noted as an 
"impacting condition."  Tri-State Proposal at 15.  The awardee 
proposed to complete work on and open the lower half of the trail 
after the first cycle/season of work.  The evaluators concluded that 
the awardee's critical path plan demonstrated a logical sequence and 
clear understanding of the work to be accomplished, with specific 
consideration of the trout spawning and weather limitations.  In 
particular, the awardee's plan to open the lower half of the trail 
after the first season of work, or in the fall of 1998, was determined 
of value to the government, since it would allow public use of this 
high use trail, which had been closed since January 1996, one season 
earlier than under the other proposals.         

Tri-J disagrees with the evaluation and contends that its proposed 
work progress from the beginning to the end of the trail provided a 
logical sequence of work based on the "way most trail work is done," 
rather than "having cross country movement to particular sites."  
Comments at 9.  Further, the protester maintains that it "did point 
out . . . specific concerns" regarding trout spawning and winter 
weather, "but that without some specific start time, the effect of 
these could not be directly scheduled."  Comments at 11.  

The evaluation in this area was reasonable.  Even if Tri-J is correct 
that trail work usually is sequenced from the beginning of a trail to 
the end, this does not establish that the usual sequence was the most 
appropriate one here; the agency reasonably could determine that a 
different sequencing--such as the awardee's--was better given the 
trout spawning and weather limitations identified in the RFP.  
Further, while the absence of a firm start date may have precluded 
offerors from providing fine-tuned scheduling taking into account the 
effect of the trout spawning and weather limitations, we think the 
agency reasonably could expect offerors to demonstrate scheduling for 
these considerations using an estimated or probable start time.  In 
this regard, faced with the same uncertainty, Tri-State nevertheless 
developed an "estimated" schedule, "dependent on [the] start date," 
which demonstrated how it would account for the trout spawning and 
weather limitations.  Tri-State Proposal at 15.  The agency therefore 
reasonably rated Tri-State's proposal superior in this area.[4]

PRICE/TECHNICAL TRADEOFF

The protester complains that the tradeoff was flawed because, while 
weaknesses in its own proposal were considered risks in the tradeoff, 
the awardee's evaluated weaknesses were ignored.  

An agency has the discretion to make award to an offeror with a higher 
technical score and higher price where it reasonably determines that 
the price premium is justified considering the technical superiority 
of the awardee's proposal, and the result is consistent with the 
evaluation criteria.  Atlantic Scaffolding Co., B-250380, Jan. 22, 
1993, 93-1 CDP  para.  55 at 4.

The agency met this standard here. While the source selection board 
(SSB) cited several weaknesses in Tri-State's proposal, it ultimately 
determined that award to Tri-State presented the best value to the 
government based on significant relative technical advantages which it 
found outweighed Tri-J's $2,379 price advantage.  These advantages 
included the following:  proven quality track record through past 
performance and experience on all required items of work; proposed 
logical sequence of work; excellent references including excellent 
craftsmanship, as supported by submitted photographs and video, and no 
unfavorable references; ability to move large rock and incorporate 
them into finished product; and demonstrated experience of prime 
contractor as stone mason with similar projects, as indicated in 
submitted photographs.  As discussed above, we find that the agency's 
evaluation of Tri-State's proposal as superior in these respects was 
reasonable.  While Tri-State's proposal contained weaknesses, these 
weaknesses were offset by strengths, as reflected in Tri-State's 
evaluated relative superiority under all of the factors discussed.  
Given that technical considerations were more important than price 
under the RFP, there simply is no basis to question the agency's 
conclusion that these technical advantages outweighed Tri-J's slightly 
lower price.

ALTERNATE PROPOSALS

Finally, contrary to the protester's contention, there is no 
indication in the record that the agency evaluated alternate proposals 
unequally or improperly failed to consider the cost savings of the 
protester's alternate proposal.  The protester  maintains that while 
its alternate offer for rock cribbing in one line item was similar to 
the awardee's alternate offer for log cribbing on another line item 
(neither of which was accepted by the agency), the awardee's alternate 
proposal nevertheless received 8 points and its own proposal received 
zero points.  The record, however,  indicates otherwise.  In fact, of 
the available 10 points, the protester's alternate proposal received 5 
and the awardee's alternate proposal received 6.

Moreover, the slight difference in these scores is explained in the 
record by a concern which also demonstrates that the agency did 
consider the lower price of the protester's alternate proposal.  The 
value of that lower price was discounted by the agency's conclusion 
that the lower price represented a risk to the government.  The 
evaluators raised their concern about the low price with the protester 
during discussions.  Specifically, during discussions, the following 
written question was submitted to the firm:  "[p]rice of alternate 
bridge proposal-we have concerns over the low price offered for the 
alternate bridge proposal; please verify your price offered."  
Discussion Letter at 2.  In response, the protester stated "my company 
[i.e., west coast supplier/fabricator] has given us a quote that is 
half that of the best east coast quote."  Response to Discussion 
Questions at 4.  Based on this response, the evaluators concluded that 
they had "no verification that the contractor can purchase these 
bridges on the west coast and have them delivered [to the east coast] 
and in place for half the price of the specified design."  Evaluation 
Narrative at 7.  Further, the evaluators concluded that "[s]election 
of this alternative would be based upon costs that are not verified 
and would increase the risk to the government."  Id.  Consequently, 
based on a lack of "any written documentation supporting th[e] bid 
price," the evaluators determined that the alternate was "not fully 
acceptable."  Id.  While the protester complains that the agency 
should have been satisfied with its response, we believe that, after 
the agency had explicitly expressed concern regarding the low price 
during discussions, it was reasonable for it to view the protester's 
conclusory response as not allaying that concern.  In this context, we 
find reasonable the slightly lower score awarded the protester's 
alternate proposal as well as the SSB's conclusion, after 
consideration of the 17 percent cost savings of that alternate 
proposal, that the technical benefits of the awardee's higher-rated 
technical proposal with very little risk outweighed the risks involved 
with the protester's unverified cost savings.  Source Selection Report 
at 5. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General of
the United States

1. The evaluators determined from a photograph of the stone steps 
(included in the protester's proposal) that, although the 
specifications were unknown, there appeared to be an erosion problem. 

2. We note that the protester's argument that it did not consider 
stone masons professional employees appears inconsistent with the 
statement in its response to the discussion questions that "[w]e will 
bring in from time to time, as needed, the professional carpenters 
and/or rock masons."  Tri-J Response to Discussion Questions at 3 
(emphasis added). 

3. The protester further contends that the rock/stone work in fact 
comprised no more than 34 to 36 percent of the contract work, rather 
than the 45 percent estimated by the agency, and that the agency thus 
assigned unreasonable importance to rock/stone work in the evaluation.  
This argument is without merit.  Even if the protester's calculations 
were assumed to be accurate, we think the agency reasonably could 
consider 34 to 36 percent of the work to be sufficiently significant 
that the differences in the proposals in the area of rock/stone work 
provided a legitimate basis for distinguishing between the two 
proposals.

4. Tri-J maintains that Tri-State's proposal unfairly was given credit 
for offering to open the lower half of the trail early, since a 
diagram in the RFP called for finishing the lower half of the trail 
(between bridge one and two), and opening it to public use, during the 
first season.  However, Tri-J does not identify, and we have not 
found, the RFP diagram alleged to contain this requirement.  The only 
RFP diagram of the entire trail is entitled "Maintenance for Traffic," 
which states only that "[l]ower trail between bridge #1 and bridge #2 
currently closed" and "[u]pon completion and acceptance of bridges, 
this section to be open to foot traffic."  RFP Specifications at 13.  
Consequently, we have no basis to question the agency's crediting the 
awardee for its proposed early opening of the lower half of the trail.