BNUMBER:  B-277362 
DATE:  October 3, 1997
TITLE: All State Boiler Work, Inc., B-277362, October 3, 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:All State Boiler Work, Inc.

File:     B-277362

Date:October 3, 1997

Timothy T. Corey, Esq., Pepe & Hazard, for the protester.
Sam Ridolfi for Frank Lill & Son, Inc., an intervenor.
George N. Brezna, Esq., Christopher M. Bellomy, Esq., and Howard B. 
Rein, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Linda Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency properly rejected as technically unacceptable a proposal which 
contained, despite repeated agency requests for correction, numerous 
deficiencies in the proposed schedule management that demonstrated the 
offeror's lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and 
the sequence in which tasks were required to be performed. 

DECISION

All State Boiler Work, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as 
technically unacceptable and the award of a contract to Frank Lill & 
Son, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62472-94-R-0451, 
issued by the Department of the Navy for boiler plant modifications at 
the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine.  The protester 
maintains that its proposal provided a schedule that met the RFP's 
minimum requirements and that the evaluation and rejection are 
improper. 

We deny the protest.

The RFP was issued on December 13, 1996, and contemplated the award of 
a firm, fixed-priced construction contract to the responsible, 
technically acceptable offeror whose proposal was determined to 
represent the best value to the government.  The solicitation was for 
the modernization and conversion of four existing field erected 
boilers in the boiler plant to fire natural gas and #2 fuel oil as the 
plant fuels in lieu of #6 fuel oil.  It also required the replacement 
of furnace refractory in three of the four boilers and the update of 
the plant to current environmental air emission requirements for the 
new fuels.  Because the boiler plant load and standby requirements 
permit only one boiler to be out of service at any time, the RFP 
contained a critical phased construction schedule which was necessary 
to maintain the needs of the activity.[1]  

The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded on the basis of 
initial proposals, without discussions (although it reserved to the 
Navy the right to conduct discussions if necessary) and provided that 
price and technical considerations would be of equal importance.  The 
RFP contained four technical criteria, all equal in importance:  (1) 
relevant experience/past performance; (2) schedule management and 
control; (3) corporate management; and (4) selected 
system/products/subcontractors. 

With respect to factor 2, schedule management and control, the RFP 
emphasized the importance of the boiler plant modifications being 
completed no later than the respective completion dates specified in 
the RFP.  Under factor 2, the RFP        specifically required the 
following:

     Provide proposed schedule showing starts and finishes of 
     significant construction events and completion of entire project.  
     The proposed schedule should detail how the phasing requirements 
     of the contract will be incorporated into the overall project 
     schedule.  The schedule should reflect critical material delivery 
     dates based on supplier commitments you have obtained, critical 
     work integration points, critical equipment issues, and slack or 
     contingencies for weather or other anticipated delays.  No 
     electronic deliverables acceptable.  Proposed schedule should be 
     in a CPM or Pert format with a minimum of 100 activities.[2] 

[Deleted] offers were received by the March 18, 1997, closing date for 
receipt of initial proposals.  The initial evaluation by the technical 
evaluation board (TEB) resulted in [deleted] proposals being evaluated 
as unacceptable/susceptible of being made acceptable, with [deleted] 
proposals (including All State's) rated technically unacceptable.  The 
source selection board (SSB) reviewed the proposals and the TEB and 
price evaluation board (PEB) findings and recommended to the source 
selection authority (SSA) that All State's rating be changed from 
unacceptable to unacceptable/susceptible of being made acceptable 
because it was believed that All State's deficiencies could be 
corrected through a round of discussions.  On April 18, written 
discussion letters were sent to five competitive range firms, 
including All State.  Revised proposals were received on April 29 from 
all five and were reviewed by the TEB.  The revised proposal submitted 
by All State contained technical deficiencies and was again rated 
unacceptable/susceptible of being made acceptable.  

By letter dated May 8, All State was again advised of the technical 
deficiencies in its proposal and was also advised that this was its 
last opportunity to correct the deficiencies in its technical proposal 
and to submit a best and final offer (BAFO).  BAFOs were received on 
May 15.  The TEB reviewed the revised technical proposals received 
with BAFOs and rated all revised proposals acceptable or above, with 
the exception of All State's which was rated unacceptable.  

All State's proposal was found unacceptable because, despite being 
advised explicitly of the deficiencies in its proposal schedule and 
having had two opportunities to correct it, All State's schedule 
remained deficient.  All State's modified schedule failed to show 
start-up and testing as required by the RFP.  The evaluators concluded 
that All State's revised schedule contained logic errors including:  
emissions testing occurring only in Phase A and prior to any other 
construction, when the solicitation required that it be done following 
successful control room installation and start-up for each phase; 
asbestos removal tasks not shown as meeting the requirements, with 
removal work starting before installation of containment areas and 
continuing after containment removal and air clearance testing; 
control room construction shown in Phases A, B, and C, although it is 
required to be completed in Phase A; and delivery of control system 
equipment shown prior to control room completion, contrary to 
specifications.  The agency concluded that All State's revised 
schedule required correction of the identified logic errors, which 
would cause All State to miss the last three-phase completion dates 
required by the RFP. 

On May 27, the SSB reviewed the findings of the TEB and PEB and agreed 
that All State's proposal should be excluded from the competitive 
range as technically unacceptable because of its deficient schedule 
management and control.  Among other things, the SSB agreed with the 
TEB that:  (1) although All State's schedule appeared to be in 
CPM/PERT format, the critical path was not clear, it contained several 
logic errors, task interdependencies were hard to follow, and no float 
was shown; (2) the schedule failed to show start-up and testing as 
required; and (3) correction of the logic errors contained in the 
schedule would cause All State to miss the completion dates for all 
three phases of the project.  The SSA concurred with the SSB's 
recommendation and All State's proposal was excluded from the 
competitive range.  On June 12, All State was advised of the 
determination that its revised proposal was technically unacceptable 
and that award had been made to Frank Lill & Son.  All State was 
debriefed by the agency on June 18 and filed this protest with our 
Office on June 26.

All State contends that its proposal met all of the minimum 
solicitation requirements.  All State maintains that it clearly set 
forth the start and finish dates of significant construction 
activities and reflected completion of the entire project in 
accordance with the required completion date.  All State also takes 
the position that its schedule was in CPM format, and outlined the 
strategy and sequence of work for project completion.  Finally, All 
State contends that rating its proposal unacceptable because of an 
unacceptable rating with respect to only one of the four evaluation 
factors was inconsistent with the RFP evaluation scheme.

In reviewing whether a proposal was properly rejected as technically 
unacceptable, our Office will not reevaluate the proposal, as the 
determination of whether a proposal meets the contracting agency's 
needs is a matter within the agency's discretion.  Triton Marine 
Constr. Corp., B-250856, Feb. 23, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  171 at 2.  We will, 
however, examine the record to determine whether the evaluators' 
judgments were reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation 
criteria.  Id.  A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's 
judgment does not show that the agency's judgment was unreasonable.  
Allied-Signal Aerospace Co., B-250822, B-250822.2, Feb. 19, 1993, 93-1 
CPD  para.  201 at 17.  

Here, the record establishes that the agency had a reasonable basis 
for rejecting All State's proposal as technically unacceptable.  As 
indicated above, the RFP contained specific requirements for a 
schedule showing starts and finishes of significant construction 
events and completion of entire project.  During initial discussions, 
All State was advised of the agency's concern that All State's 
proposed schedule did not meet specific requirements of the RFP, 
including that the schedule was not in CPM/PERT format and did not 
show critical path, task interdependencies or float.  The evaluators 
considered All State's proposed task duration to be overly ambitious, 
and in some instances, unrealistic, and work on follow-on phases was 
shown starting prior to acceptance of the current phase.  The agency 
advised All State that these deficiencies made its proposed 31-month 
completion time extremely doubtful and that All State's proposed 
alternate of combining phases B and C was unacceptable because plant 
load and standby requirements did not permit two boilers to be out of 
service at one time.  All State was informed that it needed to provide 
a schedule in accordance with the requirements stated under factor 2 
and in accordance with the phasing specifications. 

While All State's revised schedule showed some improvement, it still 
failed to provide a schedule consistent with the requirements, as 
specifically requested during discussions.  All State was again 
advised of the deficiencies in its revised schedule which included the 
failure to meet previously identified requirements.  Moreover, All 
State was advised that although it had corrected some overly ambitious 
and unrealistic task durations, its resubmission was actually worse 
than its initial one because it included less than the required 
minimum 100 activities, the logic was very poor, and many areas were 
vague.  

All State states that, because of the number of activities, it set 
forth each activity as critical, hence no float was reflected in the 
schedule.  It also asserts that the specifications did not mandate 
that float be reflected.  The protester further claims that although 
it omitted the words "emissions testing," start up and testing was 
actually reflected in phases A, B, and C.  According to All State, it 
is impossible to start up the boiler without testing.  All State also 
maintains that its asbestos removal tasks was properly reflected in 
all phases and that containment will be set forth on the schedule in 
greater detail upon award and once a working construction schedule is 
produced.  Lastly, the protester contends that, while it is true that 
its schedule reflected control room construction in all of the phases 
when the requirement is for the control room to be substantially 
completed in Phase A, additional work, such as control room tie-ins, 
needs to be performed in each phase for each boiler.

All State's arguments do not show that the agency unreasonably 
downgraded its proposal.  Float or "slack" was in fact required to be 
reflected in the schedule.  The RFP specifically required that 
offeror's reflect in the schedule critical delivery dates based on, 
among other things, "slack" or contingencies for weather or other 
anticipated delays.  The agency reasonably determined that All State's 
approach of simply showing every activity on the critical path to be 
methodologically incorrect and indicative of a lack of understanding 
of project scheduling and schedule formatting.  Further, the record 
shows that All State's schedule suggests that there will be float 
without clarifying where and how long the float occurs.  The record 
establishes that All State's schedule failed to satisfy and, in fact, 
conflicted with the requirements of the RFP in several significant 
areas.  For example, it appeared that All State intended to only start 
up the boilers in the first three phases and to conduct some type of 
testing only in the last phase, which conflicts with the requirements 
of the RFP.  The RFP requires 30 consecutive days, 24 hours per day of 
operational testing for each boiler to demonstrate that it is 
functioning properly in accordance with all the requirements of the 
RFP, and All State appears to have instead allocated 10 days in Phases 
A, B, and C and 20 days in Phase D.   Concerning asbestos removal, All 
State's schedule shows the start and finish for "removal of asbestos 
contained refractories and insulation" occurring prior to the start of 
"set-up asbestos/lead abatement containment."  Moreover, it is not 
sufficient for All State to now argue that a more detailed containment 
schedule would be provided after award, when a detailed schedule is 
necessary in order to demonstrate the ability to timely complete the 
project.  Lastly, while it may be true that tie-ins for all phases are 
necessary, the RFP requires the actual construction of the control 
room to be performed in Phase A, and All State has allotted the same 
amount of days for the control room in Phases A, B, and C.

All State was given three opportunities to submit an acceptable 
schedule and failed to do so.  All State's proposal was reasonably 
rejected as technically unacceptable because of the continuing major 
deficiencies in its schedule.  While All State asserts that the agency 
unreasonably rejected its proposal as technically unacceptable based 
on an unacceptable rating under only one of the evaluation criteria, 
the evaluated deficiencies in All State's proposed schedule management 
establish nonconformance with the RFP's required schedule, which 
constitutes a proper basis for rejection.  Allenhurst Indus., Inc., 
B-256836, B-256836.2, July 8, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  14 at 4-5.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States    

1. The boiler produces heating hot water and steam power for all 
structural operations on the entire Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and 
produces compressed air and processed steam, which are required in all 
phases of ship repair processes.

2. Critical Path Method (CPM) is a network diagram planning system 
that is activity oriented, uses single time estimates, and usually 
starts at the beginning and works to the end of the project.  Program 
Evaluation Review Technique (PERT) is an event oriented system, and is 
primarily a project monitoring system.  In practice, the CPM and PERT 
techniques are almost identical.