BNUMBER:  B-278281 
DATE:  January 14, 1998
TITLE: F2M-WSCI, B-278281, January 14, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:F2M-WSCI

File:     B-278281

Date:January 14, 1998

Raymond R. Flowers, Jr., Esq., and Charles Pechewlys, Esq., Fairfield, 
Farrow, Flowers, Pierson & Strotz, for the protester.
Carina Y. Enhada, Esq., for HND/Hawaiian Dredging, a Joint Venture, an 
intervenor.
Lis B. Young, Esq., and Ron R. Ashlock, Esq., Naval Facilities 
Engineering Command, for the agency.
Scott Riback, Esq., David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., 
Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of 
the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Agency reasonably found proposal technically compliant with 
solicitation requirements relating to installation of road and parking 
facilities at military housing project; protester's interpretation 
that provision requires particular configuration is not supported by 
the language of the solicitation.  

2.  Protest that awardee's proposal drawings for design and 
construction of military housing project indicated noncompliance with 
solicitation requirement relating to provision of sidewalks is denied 
where record shows that proposal drawings were only preliminary 
drawings, subject to revision in final design, and that, in any case, 
any deviation was de minimis and did not affect the competitive 
standing of protester.

3.  Agency source selection of higher-priced offeror was 
unobjectionable where record shows that agency's evaluation conformed 
to evaluation scheme stated in solicitation, and agency has 
articulated adequate reasons to support its decision. 

DECISION

F2M/WSCI protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to 
HND/Hawaiian Dredging, a Joint Venture, under request for proposals 
(RFP) No. N62742-96-R-1373, for the design and construction of 
bachelor enlisted quarters at the Marine Corps Base in Kaneohe Bay, 
Hawaii.  F2M argues that Hawaiian Dredging's proposal did not conform 
to various requirements of the RFP, and that the source selection 
decision was not reasonable or consistent with the evaluation scheme 
set forth in the solicitation.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation requested fixed, lump-sum offers to design and 
construct a base quantity of up to 170 housing units[1] (base portion) 
with an option quantity of up to an additional 170 units (option 
portion).  The RFP provided that the Navy would initially award at 
least the base quantity and would determine whether to exercise the 
option within 180 days of contract award.

Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose conforming offer 
was most advantageous to the government under technical and price 
factors, with technical and price considerations given equal weight.  
The technical factor was comprised of the following subfactors:  
building design; quality of past performance; site design and 
engineering; building engineering, material, quality, and maintenance; 
and subcontracting plan.  (The agency scored proposals under the 
technical factor using adjectival ratings of highly acceptable, 
acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable.)  The RFP's statement of work 
(SOW) provided that the agency was interested in the design and 
construction of a facility that had a "residential" as opposed to a 
"barracks-like" atmosphere, and included detailed information 
regarding both design and construction requirements (such as quality 
of building materials and spatial parameters) and subjective design 
criteria (such as aesthetics).  The SOW further identified numerous 
features described as "desirable," as opposed to required, and advised 
offerors that favorable consideration would be given to offers 
including one or more of the desirable features.

The Navy received three proposals, all of which were found technically 
acceptable.  Following discussions with all offerors, the agency 
requested best and final offers (BAFO).  F2M's and Hawaiian Dredging's 
proposals received the same adjectival ratings under each subfactor, 
and both proposals were rated highly acceptable overall.  (The third 
proposal, not relevant here, was rated lower than F2M's and Hawaiian 
Dredging's.)  Hawaiian Dredging's price for the base and option 
requirements was $34,399,540, while F2M's price was $33,489,000 for 
one of two alternate proposals and $33,520,000 for the other.  The 
agency's source selection board (SSB) found that Hawaiian Dredging's 
proposal offered the best overall value to the government despite its 
higher price.  Upon learning of the resulting award to Hawaiian 
Dredging, F2M filed this protest with our Office.

HAWAIIAN DREDGING'S COMPLIANCE WITH RFP REQUIREMENTS 

F2M maintains that Hawaiian Dredging's proposal failed to conform to 
the requirements of the RFP with respect to streets, parking, 
sidewalks, water mains, and project phasing.

Contracting agencies are responsible for evaluating information or 
data submitted by an offeror to determine whether the offer complies 
technically with the requirements of the RFP, and our Office will not 
disturb the agency's technical judgment unless it is shown to be 
unreasonable.  AlliedSignal, Inc., B-272290, B-272290.2, Sept. 13, 
1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  121 at 5.  Further, even where the record shows that 
the agency has relaxed a solicitation requirement for one offeror, our 
Office will not sustain a protest unless it also is established that 
the agency's actions were prejudicial to the protester.  Kasco Fuel 
Maintenance Corp., B-274131, Nov. 22, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  197 at 4.  
Based upon our review of the record, including testimony taken at a 
hearing our Office conducted with respect to this protest, we find 
that the Navy reasonably determined that Hawaiian Dredging's proposal 
met the RFP requirements and was acceptable.

Street and Parking Design

F2M contends that Hawaiian Dredging's street and parking design fails 
to conform to the requirements of the RFP.  The solicitation stated 
that the street and parking system should provide safe and convenient 
access within the housing development area.  The RFP further provided 
minimum widths for streets and parking lots as follows:  a main 
collector street--defined as a street that connects the external 
street system with parking lots--was required to have a minimum width 
of 7.3 meters (with no parking on either side), and parking lots were 
required to have a minimum width of 7.3 meters where no parking is 
permitted on either side of the lot, 12 meters where parking is 
permitted on one side of the lot, and 16.8 meters where parking is 
permitted on both sides of the lot. 

In Hawaiian Dredging's site design, the housing is located in a 
central area surrounded by a street and parking system on its 
perimeter.  The street and parking system proposed for the base 
portion is a continuous loop of street interspersed with parking lots.  
For the option portion, Hawaiian Dredging's design does not include a 
street, but instead includes a series of connected parking lots around 
the perimeter of the central housing development area.  Because of the 
system's design, cars traveling around the development may enter and 
exit several parking lots on the way to the exterior street system.  
When a car travels through a parking lot, it must pass through parking 
areas where other cars may pull directly into the flow of traffic from 
a parking spot. 

F2M argues that this approach is inconsistent with the specifications, 
which the protester reads as requiring that the parking lots be 
segregated from the collector street.  According to F2M, the agency 
was interested, for safety reasons, in having cars exit the parking 
lots and enter the collector street from a single ingress/egress point 
connecting each parking lot with the street system so that cars would 
not be driving directly from parking spots into the flow of traffic.  
(F2M's design, which involves discrete parking lots that are 
segregated from its collector street, conforms to this 
interpretation.)  F2M maintains that the acceptance of the awardee's 
allegedly noncompliant approach resulted in competitive prejudice 
because the awardee's parking and street system saves room and makes a 
large central area available for constructing the housing, resulting 
in a concededly better site design. 

Hawaiian Dredging's design is consistent with the RFP.  First, 
although the solicitation specified minimum widths for parking lots 
and collector streets, and stated that parking was prohibited on 
collector streets, it did not require that the design include a 
collector street or that parking spaces or lots be segregated from the 
flow of traffic passing through the development.  Further, the record 
shows that, where Hawaiian Dredging's design does include a street 
(primarily on the western side of its base portion design), the 
roadway is depicted as being approximately 7.3 meters wide, and no 
parking is shown on either side of the street, in accord with the 
solicitation.[2]   Elsewhere, Hawaiian Dredging's design drawings show 
parking lots that are the appropriate width in light of the proposed 
parking arrangement (i.e., parking on one or both sides of the 
lot).[3]  Since Hawaiian Dredging's design otherwise met the 
dimensional requirements and use restrictions specified in the RFP, 
there is no basis to question the Navy's determination that Hawaiian 
Dredging's parking and street design were acceptable.  In sum, the 
record shows that F2M simply made certain assumptions about the 
government's requirements as they relate to the street and parking 
system--that parking lots had to be segregated from collector streets, 
and that the flow of traffic around the development could not pass 
through parking lots--which were not dictated by language in the 
RFP.[4]

Sidewalks

The RFP generally required continuous sidewalks throughout the 
development to permit pedestrian circulation between all development 
elements such as housing units, parking lots, streets and recreational 
areas, and specifically required sidewalks on both sides of new 
streets.  F2M maintains that Hawaiian Dredging's design fails to meet 
the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of new streets because 
there is an incomplete sidewalk on the western side of the street on 
the west side of the development for the base portion design.  In this 
regard, the drawing shows a partial sidewalk on the west side of the 
road that is described by the parties as "petering out"; the area 
where a sidewalk is not depicted measures approximately 100 meters in 
length.  F2M also argues that Hawaiian Dredging's option portion 
design lacks a sidewalk in the southwest corner of the development 
(this area measures approximately 30-35 meters in length).

This argument does not provide a basis for sustaining F2M's protest.  
Hawaiian Dredging's option portion design is compliant with the 
requirements of the RFP.  The area identified by the protester as not 
having a sidewalk is the exterior perimeter of a parking lot, not a 
street; consequently, there is no requirement that sidewalks be 
provided in this area.  As for Hawaiian Dredging's base portion design 
drawing, although a sidewalk is not depicted along part of the west 
side of the street, the record shows that the drawing is only a 
preliminary or proposal drawing that is only approximately 25 percent 
complete.  Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 274.  (The RFP does not require 
complete design or construction drawings until several months after 
award and notice to proceed.)  Further, the record shows that the way 
in which this sidewalk is depicted in the drawing (i.e., a walkway 
that essentially "peters out") is a drafting technique used by 
architects to indicate "continuation."  Tr. at 220.  In addition, the 
record indicates that there is adequate room within the base portion 
project boundaries to place the sidewalk.  Tr. at 274-75.  Thus, the 
mere fact that the firm's proposal drawing does not specifically show 
a sidewalk in this area does not demonstrate that the firm's final 
design will lack the required walkway.

In any case, F2M does not contend that it was prejudiced by the 
agency's alleged waiver of this requirement, and any deviation from 
the specifications in this regard would appear to be de minimis, 
offering no competitive advantage to Hawaiian Dredging.  This 
deficiency therefore did not warrant rejecting Hawaiian Dredging's 
offer.  Kasco Fuel Maintenance Corp., supra.

Water Mains

F2M asserts that Hawaiian Dredging's design fails to properly locate 
the water mains for the project.  In this regard, F2M reads the RFP as 
requiring that the water mains be located underneath the proposed 
streets; since the awardee's design contemplates a continuous system 
of parking lots, F2M argues that locating the water mains under these 
areas is impermissible.  This argument is without merit; the RFP 
required only that the water mains be located "within the roadway 
systems."  Hawaiian Dredging's proposal to place the water mains 
underneath its proposed parking lot system meets this requirement.[5]

Complete and Useable Base Portion Design

F2M maintains that Hawaiian Dredging's base portion design, standing 
alone, does not present a complete and useable facility, as required 
by the RFP, because a part of its base portion construction (the 
street on the west side of the development and one of the parking 
lots) would have to be demolished in order to construct the option 
portion of the project should the agency elect to exercise the option.  
F2M alleges that the necessary demolition will disrupt use of the base 
portion facility, and that this is inconsistent with the RFP 
requirements.

This allegation is without merit.  As noted above, the agency is 
required to exercise the option within 180 days of award.  The record 
indicates that construction for the base portion will not begin until 
final approval of all post-award design and construction drawings, 
which is likely to take approximately 165 days.  Tr. at 161-69.  In 
this regard, the RFP provides for a 135-day period during which 
various drawings must be submitted and up to an additional 30 days for 
the government to approve the drawings.  Further, after the drawing 
submittal process, the RFP provides for an additional 355 days for 
construction of the base portion (and an additional 420 days after 
notice to proceed for construction of the option portion).  
Consequently, the agency reasonably determined, as a representative of 
Hawaiian Dredging testified, that the awardee could easily delay 
construction of the identified parts of the project (the roadway and 
parking lot) until after the 180-day period, and thereby avoid the 
necessity for any demolition of the base portion construction.  Id.

Building Orientation

F2M argues that the awardee's buildings--arranged in a "quadrangle" 
design which clusters the housing units around several courtyards--are 
not oriented to take advantage of the prevailing tradewinds, as 
required by the RFP.  (In contrast, the protester's units are 
organized in a horizontal configuration that faces the direction of 
the oncoming tradewinds.)

This argument is without merit.  According to the unrebutted testimony 
of Hawaiian Dredging's architect, the courtyard design creates 
"micro-environments" that provide adequate ventilation to the units by 
having the courtyard structures open at the "corners" and by taking 
advantage of swirling winds created as air passes over the top of the 
forward-facing portion of the structure.  Tr. at 187-90, 203-04.  The 
architect further testified that he had previously designed similar 
types of structures in Hawaii that had successfully been ventilated 
without air conditioning through use of these design concepts.  The 
architect stated that he had considered and rejected the possibility 
of orienting all the building facades toward the oncoming winds 
because of a concern that in this location, on the windward side of 
the island of Oahu, this would create the potential for excessive wind 
forces.  Id.  In light of the architect's unrebutted testimony, we 
conclude that the agency reasonably determined that the awardee's 
design met the tradewinds requirement.  

SOURCE SELECTION

F2M challenges the award decision on the basis that the agency relied 
on unstated evaluation criteria in finding that Hawaiian Dredging's 
proposal was most advantageous to the government.  According to F2M, 
since both proposals were rated highly acceptable, the agency was 
required to make award to the lower-priced offeror, that is, to F2M.

Agencies are required to evaluate proposals consistent with a 
solicitation's stated evaluation criteria, including considerations 
reasonably and logically encompassed by the stated factors.  Israel 
Aircraft Indus., Ltd., MATA Helicopters Div., B-274389 et al., Dec. 6, 
1996, 97-1 CPD  para.  41 at 6-7. 

F2M's protest identifies several elements that it maintains amount to 
unidentified award discriminators.  However, we find that these 
discriminators fell within the scope of the stated evaluation 
criteria.  For example, in making its source selection, the agency 
noted that Hawaiian Dredging's site grading exceeded the RFP 
requirements and that its proposed quadrangle design was preferable to 
the essentially linear design offered by F2M.  The RFP specifically 
provided for consideration of site planning and engineering, and 
building configuration and exterior appearance.  The protester 
maintains that the RFP does not provide for more favorable 
consideration of an offer that exceeds the solicitation's minimum 
requirements, or permit a subjective judgment relating to a preference 
for one design concept as compared to another.  However, such 
considerations are the essence of any best value source selection 
decision; agencies distinguish between proposals on the basis of 
judgments about the relative value of the particular features offered 
by one or another proposal, and this is especially true in 
acquisitions such as this, where a part of the requirement involves 
the preparation of a unique response--in this case the design of a 
housing development--to an agency's requirements.  See Innovative 
Logistics Techniques, Inc., B-275786.2, Apr. 2, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  144.  
There is no basis to conclude that the agency improperly considered 
elements outside of the scope of the evaluation criteria.

As for the propriety of the source selection itself, the record shows 
that, although both proposals received the same adjectival ratings, 
the Navy found several aspects of Hawaiian Dredging's design to be 
advantageous, and that these features essentially rendered that firm's 
offer slightly technically superior.  This is unobjectionable.  
Adjectival ratings, like point scores, are merely guides for 
intelligent decision-making by source selection officials; agencies 
are not bound to make source selection decisions based solely on such 
ratings, and may properly distinguish between offers regardless of the 
closeness of the scoring.  AlliedSignal, Inc., supra, at 7.

Among the factors that led the agency to find Hawaiian Dredging's 
offer somewhat superior was the geometry of the rooms in Hawaiian 
Dredging's design (including the location of the door and the length 
and width dimensions of the room), which the agency found preferable 
to F2M's because Hawaiian Dredging's room "symmetry" made the room 
more easily divisible into equal living quarters for two people.  Tr. 
at  407-08.[6]  The record also shows that the Navy found Hawaiian 
Dredging's design to be advantageous because (as discussed) the 
proposed site grading exceeded the requirements of the RFP and 
resulted in the buildings being placed at a slightly higher elevation 
than F2M's buildings.  Tr. at 409-10.  According to the agency, this 
was preferable because the area where the development is being 
constructed is subject to flooding, and the higher building elevation 
provided an added measure of safety against damage in the event of 
such flooding.  Tr. at 409-10.  Also as discussed, the agency found 
Hawaiian Dredging's proposed quadrangle building configuration to be 
advantageous because it conveyed a more residential feeling and sense 
of community than F2M's design.  Tr. at 412-14.  Finally, the agency 
found that Hawaiian Dredging's proposal offered more of the RFP's 
identified "desirable features," such as ceramic tile wainscoting in 
the hallways and at the base of the buildings, and stainless steel 
guardrails.  Tr. at 416-17.[7]  The agency concluded that these 
aspects of the Hawaiian Dredging offer made it slightly superior from 
a technical standpoint, and found that award to that firm, despite its 
price premium, offered the best overall value to the government.  This 
conclusion was both rational and consistent with the stated evaluation 
criteria.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

11. For both the base and option portions, the solicitation 
contemplated the construction of 160 units with an additive quantity 
of an additional 10 units during each portion.

2. F2M argued during the hearing that the awardee's drawings show that 
in one or two places, its roadway system does not meet the requirement 
that it be a minimum of 7.3 meters wide; the protester elicited 
testimony from a witness for the awardee that the roadway at 
particular places on its drawings appeared to measure only 7.2 meters 
wide.  As discussed above, however, the proposal drawings are merely 
preliminary drawings; accordingly, and since the record indicates that 
there is sufficient room within the site to accommodate the required 
roadway width, any such minor discrepancies on the drawings did not 
require the agency to conclude that Hawaiian Dredging would not comply 
with the specifications relating to roadway width.

3. During the course of the hearing, extensive testimony was offered 
regarding whether or not the street on the western side of Hawaiian 
Dredging's base portion design constituted a street or part of a 
larger parking lot.  However, whether it is defined as a collector 
street or parking area, it nonetheless meets the dimensional 
requirements and use restrictions specified in the RFP.  Consequently, 
the term used to describe this area is immaterial.

4. F2M also maintains that Hawaiian Dredging's base portion design 
lacks "convenient" parking for one of its buildings because some of 
the associated parking spaces are not located within a lot that is 
adjacent to the building.  However, the record shows that the maximum 
distance from the building's parking spaces is 120 meters.  Given that 
the RFP did not define the term "convenient," and considering that 
this is a Marine Corps barracks facility, we are not persuaded that 
this distance warranted downgrading Hawaiian Dredging's proposal.

5. We note that the agency states that the object of this requirement 
is to have water mains underneath paved areas for easier access in the 
event repairs are needed.  This objective is satisfied by Hawaiian 
Dredging's design.

6. Although F2M disagrees with the agency's conclusion regarding the 
advantages of Hawaiian Dredging's proposed room geometry, testimony 
from one of the technical evaluators responsible for this aspect of 
the evaluation persuades us that, in fact, Hawaiian Dredging's room 
geometry is more flexible and offers a more "divisible" space for two 
occupants.  Tr. at 317-26. 

7. F2M maintains that its proposed acrylic wainscoting and concrete 
guardrails are equivalent to Hawaiian Dredging's ceramic tile 
wainscoting and stainless steel guardrails and that it should have 
received similarly favorable consideration.  However, the RFP 
specified wainscoting of either ceramic tile, quarry tile or similar 
substance, and also steel guardrails, not acrylic wainscoting and 
concrete guardrails, as the "desirable features."  Thus, Hawaiian 
Dredging's offer was reasonably viewed as preferable in this area.