TITLE:  Butt Construction Company, Inc., B-284270, March 20, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-284270
DATE:  March 20, 2000
**********************************************************************
Butt Construction Company, Inc., B-284270, March 20, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Butt Construction Company, Inc.

File: B-284270

Date: March 20, 2000

Robert Martin, Esq., Simon, Turnbull & Martin, for the protester.

Thomas P. Butler, for Monarch Construction Company, an intervenor.

Carl Platt, Esq., Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency.

Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Under solicitation providing for selection of proposal offering the best
value to the government, with price and technical factors being equal in
weight, agency reasonably selected higher-rated, higher-priced proposal for
award where it determined that strength of offeror's experience was
significant enough to offset difference in price.

2. Agency's scoring of protester's proposal under similar projects subfactor
in solicitation for design and construction work was reasonable where
protester did not demonstrate experience with projects with comparable
security requirements.

DECISION

The Butt Construction Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to
Monarch Construction Company under request for proposals (RFP) No.
DACA27-99-R-0037, issued by the Army Corps of Engineers for design and
construction of an addition to, and renovation of, the Avionics Research
Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. Butt argues that its
proposal should have been selected because it represents the best value to
the government.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, which was issued on September 9, 1999, contemplated the award of a
fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal represented the best
value to the government. RFP sect. 00110, at 4. Proposals were to be evaluated
on the basis of price and the following factors, listed in order of
importance: qualifications and experience, design and engineering, and
project management. RFP sect. 00130, at 2-3. Price was equal in weight to the
other evaluation factors combined. RFP sect. 00130,

at 1. The RFP provided for consideration of the following subfactors under
the qualifications and experience factor: prime contractor experience,
design firm experience, individual personnel experience, and mechanical and
electrical subcontractor experience. [1] In addition, the RFP provided for
consideration of the following elements under the prime contractor
experience subfactor: similar projects, previous experience with mechanical
and electrical subcontractors, original/final dates and costs, and points of
contact (references). RFP sect. 00130, at 2.

Five offerors submitted proposals prior to the October 20 closing date. All
five were included in the competitive range, and the agency conducted
discussions with and requested revised proposals from all. Final technical
scores and prices were as follows:

Offeror Technical Score Total Price

Quals./Exp. Des./Eng. Proj. Man. Overall

Total points 8000 3600 2000 13600

Butt 4500 2405 1100 8005 $11,073,000

Monarch 5380 2120 1295 8795 $11,312,000

Offeror A 5090 2060 1125 8275 $11,496,857

Offeror B 4090 1825 1025 6940 $12,115,000

Offeror C 5380 2475 1235 9090 $12,768,889

Evaluation Scoring Sheets, Revised Oct. 22, 1999; Agency Report at 12. [2]

The technical evaluation panel determined that Monarch's combination of
technical merit and price represented the best value to the government. In
this regard, the evaluators concluded that Offeror C's top-rated technical
proposal "did not offer enough advantages" over Monarch's second-ranked one
to justify paying a price premium of approximately $1.5 million, but that
the strengths of Monarch's proposal were "significant enough to offset the
difference of $239,000.00 in price" over Butt's lowest-priced one.
Memorandum from the Evaluation Board to the Contracting Officer, Evaluation
Results, at 15 (Nov. 29, 1999). In comparing Monarch's proposal with Butt's,
the evaluators noted that Monarch had received a far better score than Butt
under the most important evaluation criterion (qualifications and
experience) because of recent projects of similar scope, size and
complexity; they also noted that Monarch had demonstrated a significant
amount of prior work experience with its proposed design team and
subcontractors. Id. The evaluation panel concluded that "[b]ased on the
strength of their experience, the Design Team experience and experience in
working with the Mechanical and Electrical Subcontractor, Monarch
represented the best value to the Government when compared to Butt
Construction Company." Id. Accordingly, the evaluation panel recommended
Monarch for award. The source selection authority concurred, and on December
2, the Corps awarded a contract to Monarch.

Butt challenges the agency's price/technical tradeoff, arguing that the
Corps has not adequately justified its selection of a higher-priced offeror.
The protester maintains that despite their references to Monarch's higher
point scores, the evaluators (and concurring source selection authority) did
not find that these scores were indicative of technical superiority; thus,
the protester asserts, the agency officials had no basis upon which to
conclude that the proposal was worth a price premium.

Source selection officials have broad discretion to determine the manner and
extent to which they will make use of the technical and price evaluation
results in negotiated procurements. Stewart Title of Orange County, Inc.,
B-261164, Aug. 21, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 75 at 7. In deciding between competing
proposals, price/technical tradeoffs may be made; the propriety of such
tradeoffs turns not on the difference in technical scores or ratings per se,
but on whether the source selection official's judgment concerning the
significance of that difference was reasonable and adequately justified in
light of the RFP evaluation scheme. DynCorp, B-245289.3, July 30, 1992, 93-1
CPD para. 69 at 8. The discretion to determine whether the technical advantages
associated with a higher-priced proposal are worth the price premium exists
notwithstanding the fact that price is equal to or more important than other
factors in the evaluation scheme. Federal Bureau of Investigation;
Mid-Atlantic Indus., Inc.--Recon., B-245551.2, B-245551.3, June 11, 1992,
92-1 CPD para. 507 at 9; Shirley Constr. Corp., B-240357, Nov. 8, 1990, 90-2 CPD
para. 380 at 6. In a best value procurement, an agency's selection of a
higher-priced, higher-rated offer should be supported by a determination
that the technical superiority of the higher-priced offer warrants the
additional cost involved. Miltope Corp.; Aydin Corp., B-258554.4 et al.,
June 6, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 285 at 14.

Here, despite the fact that the evaluators did not specifically refer to
Monarch's proposal as "technically superior" to Butt's, it is clear from the
record that they regarded it as such. As explained above, the evaluators
cited Monarch's higher score under the qualifications and experience factor
and determined that the strength of Monarch's experience (as reflected in
that score) was significant enough to offset its higher price. In our view,
this was a determination that the technical superiority of Monarch's
proposal was worth its higher price.

To the extent that the protester is arguing that to justify its selection of
a higher-priced proposal, the agency was required to find not simply that
the proposal was technically superior, but also that this superiority would
translate into better performance, we disagree. We think that it is inherent
in the agency decision to evaluate on the basis of specified criteria that
an offeror whose proposal is determined to be technically superior on the
basis of those criteria can be expected to render superior performance.

Butt also argues that the evaluators did not give its proposal proper credit
for several previously performed construction projects (i.e., the Fuels and
Lubricants Laboratory, the Materials Laboratory (Metals and Ceramics) and
the Hydrazine Servicing and Storage Facility) because the evaluators
considered these projects to be dissimilar in scope to the project here. The
protester bases this allegation on the statement in the evaluation report
that "[t]he majority of projects cited [by Butt] of similar dollar value
were older than 5 years, had key personnel work on them, but were not
similar in scope." [3] Memorandum from the Evaluation Board to the
Contracting Officer, Evaluation Results, at 7 (Nov. 29, 1999). Butt contends
that the projects in question were similar in scope to the project here
because they were for comparable dollar amounts and required similar
construction services. [4]

The agency responds that it did give the protester some credit for the
aforementioned projects because they had some significant similarities to
the project here, to wit, they used precast, steel frame construction and
were for large dollar amounts. Agency Comments, Feb. 8, 2000, at 4. The
agency advises that the projects were not considered similar in scope to the
instant project, however, because they did not have comparable security
requirements. Agency Response to GAO Questions, Feb. 23, 2000, at 2. The
agency explains that the evaluators considered experience with projects with
comparable security requirements important because the contractor here will
be required to design some of the building's security features and develop
installation procedures. Id. at 3; Statement of Contract Specialist,
Feb. 23, 2000, at 2.

Although the record does not indicate how much credit Butt received for each
of the particular projects in question, the protester's overall score under
the similar projects subfactor (900 of a maximum possible of 1500) appears
reasonable given the level of similarity of its projects. In this regard,
Butt does not dispute that the projects cited in its proposal did not have
the same security requirements as the project here or that these security
requirements are a critical component of the work to be performed. To the
extent that the protester now offers evidence that it has experience with
projects requiring the same security features as required here, Protester's
Comments, Feb. 15, 2000, at 6-7, Butt did not identify these projects in the
section of its proposal addressing prime contractor experience, and thus
could not reasonably have expected the agency to consider them in evaluating
the proposal under the Prime Contractor Experience criterion. Further, to
the extent that the protester argues that it was not clear from the
solicitation that the agency would be focusing on security requirements in
determining whether previous projects were similar in scope, the RFP stated,
under the heading "General Scope of Work," that the contractor is to
"provide a properly configured, equipped and sized facility to house the
secure computer labs, secure work areas, loading dock, van storage, and
command center." RFP sect. 01000, at 1. We think that this definition made clear
that one of the major components of the work here would be addressing
security requirements.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. The RFP also set forth subfactors to be considered under the other
evaluation factors; because they are not relevant to our discussion in this
decision, we have not enumerated them here.

2. The evaluators were instructed to assign half the maximum number of
points to proposal items meeting the minimum requirements of the RFP;
additional points
(up to the maximum) were to be given where proposal items exceeded the
minimum requirements. Evaluation Manual, Revised Oct. 22, 1999, at 2.

3. For three of the four subfactors under the qualifications and experience
factor (prime contractor experience; design firm experience; mechanical and
electrical subcontractor experience), the RFP provided that "[experience
prior to 5 years will not be given consideration unless key personnel
proposed for this project played a significant role AND the project can be
shown to be similar to this project considering changes in technology,
materials, equipment, codes, etc." RFP sect. 00130, at 3-4.

4. Butt also argues that the evaluators downgraded its score for its work on
the Child Development Center at Wright-Patterson because the project was not
complete. The protester bases this allegation on the statement in the
evaluation report that "[o]f the 11 projects demonstrated [by Butt], 4 were
within the last 5 years, and only 2 of these projects were similar in cost .
. . with one of these still being under construction [i.e., the Child
Development Center] . . . ." Id. The agency responds that the evaluators did
in fact view the Child Development Center project favorably due to its
similarity to the instant project in dollar amount and scope, but notes that
the projects differed with regard to the level of security features
required. Agency Comments, Feb. 8, 2000, at 4.