BNUMBER: B-278649
DATE: January 30, 1998
TITLE: High Country Contracting, B-278649, January 30, 1998
**********************************************************************
Matter of:High Country Contracting
File: B-278649
Date:January 30, 1998
Scott Thygeson for the protester.
L. Benjamin Young, Jr., Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the
agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest alleging that agency's evaluation of the protester's
experience was unreasonable is denied where the record shows that the
agency evaluated the information submitted by the protester to
determine the firm's relevant experience and that this determination
is reasonable.
DECISION
High Country Contracting protests the award of a contract to Twin Oaks
Construction under request for proposals (RFP) No. R6-3-97-96C(N),
issued by the Department of Agriculture, Gifford Pinchot National
Forest. High Country alleges that the agency's evaluation of the
firm's experience was unreasonable, resulting in the selection of a
higher-priced offeror. We deny the protest.
The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract to
construct
5.1 miles of Valley Trail on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in
Washington State. The RFP included a detailed statement of work and
drawings describing the required services. The RFP stated a "best
value" evaluation scheme in which technical capability and price were
equally important, and that award would be made to the offeror whose
proposal was determined most advantageous to the government. Offerors
were advised that the agency intended to award the contract on the
basis of initial offers.
The technical capability factor consisted of two
subfactors--experience (30 points) and past performance (70 points).
Under the technical proposal instructions, the RFP advised:
Each offeror will be evaluated on their experience as shown
for existing and prior contracts. Experience information will
be used as part of the capability evaluation factor against
which offerors' relative rankings will be compared to assure
best value to the Government.
For evaluation purposes, the RFP included an experience questionnaire
which requested that offerors submit information concerning their
current projects and those projects completed within the last 3 years.
In this regard, offerors were asked to list the types of projects
performed and their dollar value, and identify a point of contact
(including address and telephone number) for each project listed on
the questionnaire. In addition, the questionnaire required offerors
to identify the number of years the firm has performed "the line of
work contemplated by this solicitation," and the experience of the
firm's principal individuals.
Four proposals were received by the closing date for receipt of
initial proposals. In evaluating High Country's proposal under the
experience subfactor, the agency found that High Country had listed
only three projects on the experience questionnaire that were
completed--a trail and bridge project, and two bridge projects. The
two company principals were listed as having 5 and 2 years experience,
respectively. High Country did not enter any response to the number
of years of experience it had in the line of work to be performed
under this contract. The protester also did not list any current or
ongoing relevant work. The reference provided by High Country for
both the trail and bridge project and one of the two listed bridge
projects was contacted regarding his experience with the firm. The
agency was advised that High Country had been awarded three trail
construction contracts and a purchase order, that High Country's
construction of these trails was "fairly good to very good depending
on his crew," and that High Country's performance had "improved on
each contract." The contracting officer learned that these three
trails were constructed under drier conditions on the east side of the
mountains as opposed to the wet and muddy conditions of the west side
of the mountains where the Valley Trail will be constructed.
Moreover, the contracting officer considered the other projects
identified in High Country's experience questionnaire, as well as High
Country projects she was familiar with, to be smaller and less
relevant to the current project.
The contracting officer's concerns with High Country's inexperience
with trail work were exacerbated by the fact that some of the services
required for the Valley Trail construction (i.e., tread stabilization
and side hill turnpikes) had caused contractors difficulty in prior
procurements and because of the many flood repair projects underway,
fewer agency personnel were available to perform contract
administration. The contracting officer concluded that based on the
information provided in High Country's experience questionnaire, which
showed only limited trail construction experience, as well as
information provided by the contact reference for two of the three
listed contracts, High Country's proposal represented a moderate risk
of timely performance and increased contract oversight in performance
of the Valley Trail requirements.
Twin Oaks' proposal, on the other hand, was determined to be low risk.
The contracting officer found, based on Twin Oaks' experience
questionnaire and references contacted, that Twin Oaks had experience
with trail and bridge projects of similar size, scope, and complexity
and under conditions similar to those found on the west side of the
mountains. Twin Oaks reported that the firm's principals had 18 years
experience in the line of work contemplated under the solicitation and
17 years experience as a prime contractor. Following the technical
evaluation of proposals, Twin Oaks was ranked first with a composite
score of 100 points and low risk, High Country was ranked fourth with
a composite score of 75 points, comprised of 5 points for experience
and 70 points for past performance, and rated moderate risk. High
Country offered the lowest price, $115,347; Twin Oaks offered the
second low price, $126,863.75. In selecting Twin Oaks' proposal for
award, the contracting officer found that, even though High Country's
proposal was considered acceptable, Twin Oaks' highest rated, low risk
proposal was more advantageous to the government as it represented a
greater likelihood of timely performance and that the need for
government oversight of Twin Oaks' performance would be relatively
low. The contracting officer also determined that the difference in
technical capability between the two proposals was significant enough
to justify the payment of the associated price premium. The
contracting officer determined that Twin Oaks' proposal represented
the best value based on technical capability and price considerations,
and made award to that firm. After being informed that Twin Oaks had
received the award, and being provided with a written debriefing, High
Country filed this protest.
High Country protests that the agency's evaluation of its proposal
under the experience subfactor was erroneous; it believes its proposal
merited a higher score based on all its years experience, and not just
those projects it had completed within the last 3 years.[1]
The evaluation of technical proposals is the function of the
contracting agency; our review is limited to determining whether the
evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the RFP evaluation
factors. The Arora Group, Inc., B-270706.2, June 18, 1996, 96-1 CPD para.
280 at 3. Where a solicitation indicates that experience will be
evaluated, the agency properly may evaluate the extent to which an
offeror's specific experience is directly related to the work required
by the RFP. Human Resource Sys., Inc.; Health Staffers, Inc.,
B-262254.3 et al., Dec. 21, 1995, 96-1 CPD para. 35 at 3. Based on our
review of the record, and as discussed below, we find the agency's
evaluation of High Country's proposal under the experience evaluation
subfactor was reasonable and in accordance with the RFP.
The record shows that High Country's low score under the experience
subfactor was reasonably based on the information provided by the
protester as well as the information obtained from the protester's own
reference, and the protester's specific objections to the evaluation
in no way cause us to question the reasonableness of the evaluation.
For example, the protester claims that none of the references
identified on its experience questionnaire were contacted by the
agency. We find no merit to this allegation. As discussed above, the
agency did contact the reference identified by High Country for both
one of the bridge projects and the trail and bridge project listed on
the questionnaire. While the protester disputes the assessment
provided by the reference for this particular project, as well as the
contracting officer's own assessment based on her own knowledge of the
types of projects performed by the firm, we conclude that High
Country's objection to this aspect of the agency's evaluation
constitutes, at best, its mere disagreement with the evaluation
results, and does not demonstrate that the agency's evaluation was
unreasonable.
Here, the contracting officer properly evaluated the most relevant
contract performed by the protester. The other two projects were
identified by the protester itself as bridge work and, although the
current requirements include bridge construction, the agency did not
consider the experience gained by High Country in performing these
projects relevant because the trail bridges for the Valley Trail
contract are not considered to be a significant portion of the actual
work to be performed. While the protester has provided with its
protest written references regarding its experience under several
projects which, in its view, are similar in size, scope, and
complexity to the Valley Trail project, none of this information was
included in its proposal and was therefore not considered by the
agency in evaluating the firm's experience. We think the evaluation
of High Country's proposal under the experience subfactor was
reasonably based on the information contained in its proposal, which
showed limited relevant trail construction experience and, as
discussed above, there is no showing that the agency misevaluated the
information. In these circumstances--where the protester fails to
include in its proposal information necessary to demonstrate its
experience--the fact (unknown to the agency) that it may have such
experience is irrelevant to the propriety of the evaluation. AEC-ABLE
Eng'g Co., Inc., B-257798.2, Jan. 24, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 37 at 7.
Finally, even if we assume that High Country's proposal merited a
higher score under the experience evaluation subfactor, as the
protester argues, none of High Country's protest issues provides a
basis to disturb the source selection decision. In a negotiated
procurement, award may be made to an offeror submitting a
higher-rated, higher-priced offer, where the decision is consistent
with the solicitation's evaluation scheme, and the agency reasonably
determines that the technical superiority of the higher-priced offer
outweighs the price difference. See Systems Integration & Dev., Inc.,
B-271050, June 7, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 273 at 6. Here, the contracting
officer specifically determined that Twin Oaks' demonstrated
experience in performing contracts similar in size and scope to the
present requirements and under similar conditions was far greater than
High Country's, and the protester has not challenged these findings by
the agency. Specifically, the agency found (and the record confirms)
that Twin Oaks has more extensive trail building experience than High
Country, much of the work was similar to the work under this contract,
and many of the trail projects were in the Gifford Pinchot Forest.
Thus, even if the two proposals were considered equal in all other
respects, this would not necessarily mean that the agency had to award
to the low offeror, because the RFP stated that the significance of
the technical differences between competing proposals was the critical
factor in making the price/technical capability tradeoff. In sum,
based on Twin Oaks' more extensive relevant experience, the agency's
selection of Twin Oaks' offer as most advantageous was consistent with
the stated evaluation scheme and reasonable.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. To the extent High Country challenges the solicitation experience
evaluation provisions as restrictive or otherwise defective, this
allegation is not timely raised. Our Bid Protest Regulations require
that protests based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation which
are apparent prior to the closing time for receipt of initial
proposals must be filed prior to that time. 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.2(a)(1)
(1997).