BNUMBER:  B-281218 
DATE:  December 7, 1998
TITLE: Sawtooth Enterprises, Inc., B-281218, December 7, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Sawtooth Enterprises, Inc.

File:     B-281218

Date:December 7, 1998

Tim Herrmann for the protester.
Marion T. Cordova, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.
Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Selection of awardee's higher priced, technically higher-rated 
quotation was reasonable, where the solicitation provided for award on 
a cost/technical tradeoff basis and the agency reasonably concluded 
that the awardee's much lower performance risk outweighed the 
protester's lower-priced quotation.

DECISION

Sawtooth Enterprises, Inc. protests the issuance of a purchase order 
to David Mark Williams Construction (DMWC) under request for 
quotations (RFQ) No. R1-5-98-39, issued by the U.S. Forest Service, 
Department of Agriculture, for a 95-foot long continental-type trail 
bridge across Skull Creek in the Clearwater National Forest, Idaho.  
Sawtooth objects to the technical evaluation of its submission and 
complains that it should have received award based upon its 
lower-quoted price.

We deny the protest.

The RFQ was issued under simplified acquisition procedures for the 
installation of a prefabricated steel trail bridge in the Clearwater 
National Forest.  Technical proposals were required to address the 
following evaluation criteria:

     (1)  Past performance, including your history of performing 
     quality work, timely completion, and commitment to customer 
     satisfaction.  Cite all recent (within past two years) contracts 
     performed for similar work.  Include the names and telephone 
     numbers of the customer's representative, and the name of the 
     foreman assigned to each project.  Also include the names of the 
     designer, fabricator, and supplier of the bridge.

     (2)  Name, qualifications, and experience of the foreman and crew 
     members to be assigned to this project.

RFQ at C-3.

Quoters were informed that award would be made on a best value basis, 
considering price and technical merit.  Price was stated to be more 
important than technical merit.  The RFQ also provided that award may 
be made without negotiating with quoters.  Id.

Specifications and technical drawings were provided for the trail 
bridge.  Among other requirements, the bridge was to be fabricated in 
accordance with American Association of State Highway Transportation 
Officials Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges and to be 
fabricated in a plant certified under the American Institute of Steel 
Construction Quality Certification Program.  RFQ at C-42.

Fourteen quotes were received, ranging from Sawtooth's low quote of 
$59,200 to a high quote of $111,707; DMWC's quote was $76,522.  
Protest Report, Tab H.  Technical submissions were reviewed by an 
evaluation board, which noted that both Sawtooth and DMWC had failed 
to provided all requested information in their technical submissions.  
Protest Report, Tab G, G-1.

More specifically, Sawtooth did not identify the 
designer/fabricator/supplier of its quoted bridge, did not detail the 
qualifications and experience of its intended crew (two of the four 
listed crew were stated to have bridge building experience), and did 
not identify its proposed foreman.  In addition, although Sawtooth 
identified 19 projects for its past performance information, only 1 
project was for similar, albeit not recent, work (a 90-foot 
continental pack bridge in 1992).  Id., G-2-4.  The submission did 
include a resume for the president of the protester--who was 
identified as one of the crew--which indicated that the president had 
built over 40 bridges; the resume, however, also does not indicate 
that any of the bridge projects were performed recently.  Protest 
Report, Tab E, E-4.

DMWC also did not provide all requested information in its technical 
submission; for example, DMWC also did not detail the qualifications 
of its proposed crew or provide names and telephone numbers for 
customer representatives for identified past projects.  Protest 
Report, Tab G, G-1.  The evaluation board found, however, that DMWC 
identified a certified designer/fabricator/supplier for the bridge, 
had performed two similar bridge projects within the past 2 years (one 
of which was at the Clearwater National Forest), and had proposed a 
crew of four, including an identified foreman, who were all stated to 
be experienced in heavy construction and bridge setting.  Protest 
Report, Tab G, G-5-7.

The contracting officer concluded that DMWC's higher-priced quotation 
represented the best value to the government, considering price and 
the technical merit of its submission.  Although the contracting 
officer noted that Sawtooth had a good reputation, particularly with 
respect to trail construction, she was concerned that Sawtooth's lack 
of recent similar experience, failure to identity its bridge supplier, 
failure to clearly identify its intended foreman, and limited bridge 
building experience among its crew presented a performance risk.  On 
the other hand, although DMWC also had not provided all requested 
information, DMWC had recent similar experience, identified a 
certified bridge supplier, and identified a crew with bridge building 
experience.  In the contracting officer's judgment, DMWC presented 
lower performance risk than did Sawtooth and represented the best 
value for the work, considering Sawtooth's price and DMWC's technical 
superiority.  Contracting Officer's Statement at 2-3.  

Simplified acquisition procedures are designed to, among other things, 
reduce administrative expenses, promote efficiency and economy in 
contracting, and avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and 
contractors.  Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  13.002 (FAC 97-03).  
Even when using such procedures, an agency must conduct the 
procurement consistent with a concern for fair and equitable 
competition and must evaluate quotations in accordance with the terms 
of the solicitation.  See Nunez & Assocs., B-258666, Feb. 10, 1995, 
95-1 CPD  para.  62 at 2.  In reviewing protests against an allegedly 
improper simplified acquisition evaluation and award selection, we 
examine the record to determine whether the agency met this standard 
and exercised its discretion reasonably.  Id.

The record establishes that the Forest Service's evaluation was 
consistent with the RFQ and that its selection of DMWC was reasonable.  
Although neither the protester nor the awardee provided all the 
information requested by the RFQ, the technical submissions provided 
enough information to allow the agency to evaluate their relative 
technical merits.  Thus, for example, the agency could determine that 
DMWC had recent similar experience and Sawtooth did not; in this 
regard, Sawtooth admits that it has not performed similar work within 
the last 2 years.  Also, DMWC identified a certified bridge supplier 
and Sawtooth did not.[1]  

The contracting officer's concern that Sawtooth's deficiencies (e.g., 
lack of recent similar experience and failure to identify a bridge 
supplier) were significant discriminators is also supported by the 
record.  The contracting officer explains that this project would be 
performed in a remote area, requiring the transportation and setting 
of the prefabricated bridge by helicopter.  The steel track bridge 
would be handled in two halves that would have to be set on gabions 
placed in an excavated portion of the stream bank.  Given the 
sensitivity of the stream and its banks, the agency desired an 
experienced contractor that would not unduly disrupt the site.  In 
addition, the agency notes that there are many bridge suppliers in the 
market that are not certified as required by the RFQ and that 
Sawtooth's failure to identify its intended supplier also posed risks 
in performance delays.  In sum, Sawtooth's lack of recent similar 
experience, coupled with its failure to identify a certified bridge 
supplier, raised logical performance concerns that were reasonably 
viewed as significant.

Sawtooth argues that its quotation should have been selected based 
upon its lower price.  However, where a solicitation provides for a 
cost/technical tradeoff, an agency may properly select a more highly 
rated technical proposal (or quotation, as here) over one offering a 
lower price where it is determined that technical merit of the 
higher-priced one outweighs the price difference.  Southwest Marine, 
Inc.; American Sys. Eng'g Corp., B-265865.3, B-265865.4, Jan. 23, 
1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  56 at 17-18.  Here, the contracting officer found 
that DMWC's evaluated lower performance risk outweighed the benefit of 
Sawtooth's lower price.  Although Sawtooth disagrees with this 
assessment, its mere disagreement does not demonstrate that the 
contracting officer's cost/technical tradeoff judgment was 
unreasonable.  SC&A, Inc., B-270160.2, Apr. 10, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  197 
at 8.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Although Sawtooth suggests that the agency could have conducted 
discussions with it if the agency needed more information, there was 
no requirement that the agency do so, particularly given the 
solicitation's warning that an award without discussions was 
contemplated.  In any event, Sawtooth has provided no information 
during this protest to indicate that discussions would have affected 
the agency's evaluation judgment.