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."