BNUMBER:  B-278048.2 
DATE:  January 2, 1998
TITLE: Dawco Construction, Inc., B-278048.2, January 2, 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:Dawco Construction, Inc.

File:     B-278048.2

Date:January 2, 1998

Richard D. Corona, Esq., and Sean Brew, Esq., Corona & Balistreri, for 
the protester.
Lis B. Young, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

Where record shows that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with 
the factors announced in the solicitation, selection of somewhat 
higher-priced, but much higher-rated proposal was consistent with 
solicitation that provided that technical factors would be equal in 
importance with price in the selection of a contractor.

DECISION

Dawco Construction, Inc. protests the award of a contract to 
Harper/Nielsen Dillingham Builders (HND) under request for proposals 
(RFP) No. N68711-96-R-2326, issued by the Department of the Navy for 
design and construction work on housing units and a housing office and 
community center.  Dawco asserts that the agency's evaluation was 
unreasonable and that its selection decision was contrary to the 
stated evaluation factors, giving too much weight to technical 
factors.

We deny the protest.

On March 18, 1997, the agency issued the RFP for a firm, fixed-price 
contract for repair, revitalization, and improvement of 198 family 
housing units, as well as the design and construction of a new 
community center and a new housing office at the Shadow Mountain 
housing complex, serving the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in 
Twentynine Palms, California.  The solicitation provided for award to 
the offeror whose offer was determined most advantageous to the 
government, considering price and technical evaluation factors.  RFP  para.  
1C.1.  The RFP listed the following five technical factors in 
descending order of importance:  (1) design and construction; (2) past 
performance, contractor/architect-engineer (A-E)/subcontractor 
experience, and qualifications; (3) quality, durability and energy 
efficiency of proposed materials; (4) subcontracting effort; (5) 
sustainable design, construction and recycling considerations.  RFP  para.  
5B.2.  The RFP stated, at  para.  5B.2(1), that the evaluation of design and 
construction, the most important technical subfactor, would be 

     based on the quality of the submitted design for each model type 
     for the 198 units of the Shadow Mountain Housing site as shown by 
     the exterior elevations and basis of design.  The evaluation of 
     the Housing Office and Community Center shall be based on the 
     quality of the building elevations design, and the landscape 
     plans and other amenities provided.

With regard to the second most important technical subfactor, past 
performance, contractor/A-E/subcontractor experience, and 
qualifications, the RFP provided, at  para.  5B.2(2), for consideration of

     the offeror's reputation for satisfying its customers by 
     delivering quality work in a timely manner at a reasonable total 
     cost.  Also includes an offeror's reputation for effectiveness of 
     management, and commitment to customer satisfaction.

The RFP stated that the evaluators would consider (a) the similarity 
of experience in scope, dollar value, and complexity to the instant 
effort; (b) the degree of satisfaction expressed by the customer; (c) 
the timely completion of the project; and (d) the qualifications and 
experience of the entire design/build team.  Id.  In evaluating the 
team's qualifications and experience, the RFP provided that the Navy 
would consider the proposed management team, including "resumes of the 
contractor's principals, project manager, project engineer, and 
superintendent"; resumes of the proposed A/E's management team; and 
the clarity and adequacy of the team's management roles and 
responsibilities.  Id.

Ten offerors submitted proposals by the due date of May 30, and the 
agency referred those proposals to a technical evaluation board (TEB), 
which completed its evaluation 2 weeks later.  The board determined 
that none of the proposals conformed wholly to the solicitation 
requirements and that discussions, with all 10 offerors in the 
competitive range, would be necessary.  By letters dated July 22, the 
Navy sent each offeror questions and requests for clarifications.

In its letter to the protester, the Navy advised Dawco of unfavorable 
reports received in connection with [deleted].  Further, the Navy 
asked the protester [deleted].  The protester responded to the 
agency's questions by the required date of August 1; however, Dawco 
declined to identify [deleted], advising the Navy that, [deleted].  
With regard to its design team, the [deleted].

The agency held further discussions with the offerors and requested 
submission of best and final offers (BAFO) by August 29.  Upon review 
of the BAFOs, the agency rejected one offer for lack of adequate 
surety information.  Of the other nine offers, Dawco submitted the 
lowest price [deleted], with HND's price second low ($13,997,265).  In 
the technical evaluation, Dawco ranked eighth of nine offerors, with 
HND ranked second.[1]  Based on HND's relatively low price and high 
technical rating, the Navy awarded a contract to HND on September 8.  
After receiving a debriefing, Dawco filed this protest on September 
24.

Dawco challenges the Navy's evaluation of its technical proposal.  
Further, Dawco contends that the agency gave more weight to technical 
factors than to price factors in its selection decision, contrary to 
the selection criteria, which stated that price and technical factors 
would be equal in weight.

We will examine an agency's evaluation and selection decision to 
ensure that they are reasonable and consistent with the criteria 
listed in the solicitation.  Sarasota Measurements & Controls, Inc., 
B-252406.3, July 15, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  32 at 4.  The protester's 
disagreement with the agency does not render the evaluation 
unreasonable; further, in a negotiated procurement, there is no 
requirement that award be made on the basis of lowest price unless the 
RFP so specifies.  DDD Co., B-276708, July 16, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  44 at 
3.  Price/technical tradeoffs may be made, and the extent to which one 
may be sacrificed for the other is governed only by the test of 
rationality and consistency with the established evaluation factors.  
ValueCAD, B-272936, Nov. 7, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  176 at 4.  Awards to 
offerors with higher technical ratings and higher prices are proper so 
long as the result is consistent with the evaluation criteria, and the 
procuring agency has determined that the technical difference is 
sufficiently significant to outweigh the price difference.  Aumann, 
Inc., B-245898.3, B-245898.4, July 22, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  35 at 4.  The 
record here supports the evaluation of Dawco's proposal and the 
selection of HND for award as reasonable and consistent with the 
criteria listed in the RFP.

Under the most important technical subfactor, design and construction, 
Dawco's proposal received a rating [deleted].  The evaluators 
concluded that, while Dawco had [deleted].  Further, Dawco did not 
offer to provide much in the way of [deleted], as compared with other 
offerors; the awardee's proposal, for example, featured [deleted].

Despite having access to the evaluation record and the detailed 
rationale for the agency's conclusion, Dawco does not dispute any of 
the evaluators' specific findings under the design and construction 
subfactor.  Instead, Dawco argues that in considering the "amenities" 
provided by the offerors for the family housing units, the agency 
improperly applied the evaluation criteria.  The protester points out 
that, with regard to the evaluation of design and construction, the 
RFP uses the word "amenities" in connection with the housing office 
and community center, not in connection with the family housing units.  
RFP  para.  5B.2(1), quoted above.  The evaluators here considered amenities 
proposed for the family housing units, which, the protester contends, 
was contrary to the express terms of the solicitation and resulted in 
an improperly high rating for HND's proposal, as compared with its own 
proposal.

Part 2 of the RFP addresses the design/construction criteria; part 2A 
relates specifically to the housing unit revitalization.  (Part 2B 
contains the design, engineering and construction requirements for the 
housing office and community center.)  It includes specific 
requirements and minimum acceptable design and construction standards 
for the revitalization effort, paragraphs 2A.2 (Site Work) through 
2A.17 (Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Design).  Paragraph 2A.18, 
Desired Items, specifically states that in addition to the "minimum" 
requirements identified in the previous paragraphs, the Navy 
considered certain amenities "desirable" for the housing units, 
including, as follows:  storage system (closet organizer in master 
bedroom and bedroom closets; glazing (tinted interior panes in 
dual-pane system); motion sensor lighting for the front entry; solar 
tube-type skylight for single-story units; kitchen countertops and 
backsplash; and a lazy susan system for the kitchen cabinets.  
Therefore, contrary to the protester's assertions, the RFP provided 
for the precise design enhancements proposed by HND and considered by 
the TEB in awarding HND's proposal a high rating.

Under the second most important subfactor--past performance, 
experience, and qualifications--Dawco's proposal was rated [deleted].  
The agency found that the protester's past performance record and 
experience [deleted]; the proposal contained no evidence of [deleted].  
As noted above, [deleted].  In addition, Dawco had provided no data on 
[deleted], and the evaluators also found the proposal unclear 
regarding [deleted].

With respect to its failure to submit [deleted], Dawco asserts that 
the RFP did not require submission of a resume for that position and 
thus that, in assigning [deleted] rating to its proposal in this area, 
the agency did not conduct the evaluation in conformance with the RFP.  
While the RFP did not "require" offerors to designate a project 
engineer, paragraph 5B.2(2) of the RFP, quoted above, specifically 
advised offerors that the resume of the project engineer, and by 
implication the failure to designate a project engineer, would be 
considered in the evaluation.  We thus see no basis to conclude that 
the TEB acted either unreasonably or contrary to the language of the 
RFP in treating Dawco's approach [deleted].

Dawco also questions the evaluation of its past performance [deleted].  
Dawco points to a letter forwarding the agency report to our Office in 
which Navy counsel referred to Dawco's [deleted].  Dawco notes that, 
during discussions, the Navy [deleted].  In this regard, Navy counsel 
advises our Office [deleted] review of the record reveals no evidence 
that Dawco's rating in this area was based on [deleted].  In its 
proposal, Dawco referred to [deleted]; the protester presented no 
other evidence of [deleted].  Under these circumstances, we find 
nothing unreasonable about the rating assigned to Dawco's proposal by 
evaluators in this area.  See Shirley Constr. Corp. 70 Comp. Gen. 62, 
64-65 (1990), 90-2 CPD  para.  380 at 3-4.

We further conclude that the record supports the selection of HND as 
reasonable and consistent with the selection criteria in the 
solicitation.  HND's price was second low overall, next to Dawco's, 
and its proposal was ranked second high.  Given that the solicitation 
provided for equal consideration of price and technical factors, the 
record contains no basis for concluding that the selection of HND's 
much higher-rated proposal over Dawco's somewhat lower-priced one was 
either unreasonable or inconsistent with the RFP.  See Sach Sinha and 
Assocs., Inc., B-241056.3, Jan. 7, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  15 at 3-4, recon. 
denied, B-241056.4, May 21, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  487.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The proposals were evaluated using an adjectival scheme--excellent, 
highly acceptable, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable, with plus 
and minus ratings possible for each adjective.  Using this scheme, the 
evaluators first rated the 
proposals under each of the five technical subfactors; those ratings 
then were consolidated in an overall technical rating for each 
proposal.  Dawco's technical proposal was rated "acceptable minus" 
overall; the awardee's proposal was rated "highly acceptable."