TITLE:  Coastal Drilling, Inc., B-285085.3, July 20, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-285085.3
DATE:  July 20, 2000
**********************************************************************
Coastal Drilling, Inc., B-285085.3, July 20, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Coastal Drilling, Inc.

File: B-285085.3

Date: July 20, 2000

Hubert J. Bell, Jr., Esq., and Steven L. Smith, Esq., Smith, Currie &
Hancock, for the protester.

William H. Carroll, Esq., Dykema Gossett, for Advanced Construction
Techniques, Ltd., an intervenor.

Robert W. Pessolano, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency.

Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where record establishes that protester's proposal was reasonably evaluated
as containing deficiencies that indicated protester's inability to satisfy
specified material solicitation requirements, agency reasonably found
proposal technically unacceptable.

DECISION

Coastal Drilling, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Advanced
Construction Techniques, Ltd. (ACT) under request for proposals (RFP) No.
DACW27-00-R-0006, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
for seepage remediation at Patoka Lake, Indiana. Coastal primarily argues
that the agency's evaluation of Coastal's proposal was unreasonable because
the agency improperly concluded that Coastal's proposed use of its Geomation
2380 Telemetry Unit did not meet the RFP requirement for real-time computer
monitoring.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on January 20, 2000, sought proposals for the construction
of a specified balanced stabilized grouting based seepage cutoff for Patoka
Lake.

RFP sect. 00130, para. 1. Balanced stabilized grouts were to be designed and tested
to reduce grouting processes and procedures to be refined as work progressed
to achieve a residual permeability specified in "Lugeons." [1] RFP at 1.
Real-time computer monitoring with visual display of foundation
permeabilities using electronic sensing of grouting parameters to determine
these permeabilities was required. Id. The solicitation provided for the
award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal offered the
most advantage to the government and cautioned that award could be made on
the basis of initial offers without discussions.

RFP sect. 00130, para. 2.6. The solicitation provided that all evaluation factors,
other than price, when combined, were approximately equal to price and
listed the following five evaluation factors which were to be point scored,
in descending order of importance: technical approach, experience,
management plan, equipment and materials, and safety. RFP sect. 00130, para.para. 3, 4.
Price was not to be point scored. RFP sect. 00130, para. 2.5.

The agency received eight proposals by the March 1 closing date. All eight
proposals were initially reviewed by a proposal compliance review team to
ensure that they were in conformance with the RFP requirements. The
seven-member evaluation board then evaluated the proposals by initially
crediting the proposals with half the total points available for each
sub-factor to reflect that the proposals were in conformance with the
solicitation. If the board determined that a proposal exceeded the minimum
requirements, the proposal was awarded additional points under the
applicable sub-factor. Points were to be deducted where the board determined
that a proposal did not meet the minimum requirements specified in the RFP.
Agency Report, Tab 6, Evaluation Board Memorandum, at 1-2.

The evaluation board recorded its consensus scores and the comments for the
various evaluation factors and sub-factors involved on the scoring sheets.
The evaluation board point scoring of Coastal's and ACT's proposals at the
factor level (with maximum available points in parentheses) was as follows:

                                 Coastal     ACT

 Technical Approach (40,000)     14,000      37,000

 Experience (30,000)             15,500      26,000

 Management (15,000)             5,500       13,000

 Equipment & Materials           6,500       8,000
 (10,000)

 Safety (5,000)                  3,000       2,500

 Total Points (100,000)          44,500      86,500

Agency Report, Tab 6, Evaluation Board Memorandum, at 2.

The total prices proposed by these offerors were:

 Coastal     $1,329,105

 ACT         $1,594,205

Id. at 12.

In performing its detailed evaluation, the evaluation board found that
Coastal's proposal, which received the lowest point score of the eight
proposals, did not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.
Specifically, the board determined that Coastal's proposal did not
demonstrate the technical approach, experience, and management capabilities
required to successfully perform the work, and the board recommended
elimination of Coastal's proposal from further consideration for failing to
satisfy the minimum RFP requirements. Id. at 11-12, 13, 14.

The evaluation board found ACT's proposal, which received the highest point
score, to be a superior technical presentation that covered all aspects of
the computer monitoring system and operations required in the RFP. Id. at 2.
In making its award decision the agency considered that ACT submitted a
superior technical proposal because ACT demonstrated the use of real-time
computer monitoring software for stabilized grout at the Penn Forest Dam
Replacement Project. ACT proposed two experienced computer technicians, both
of whom had been involved in the development of the computer monitoring
program to be used by ACT on this project. Additionally, ACT designated a
CQC (contractor quality control) system manager who had been responsible for
the development of the first edition of the computer monitoring software
program to be used for the Patoka project. Id. at 15-17. The agency
concluded that ACT's proposal, based on technical merit, experience,
management, superiority and completeness along with its low risk,
represented the best value to the government despite its associated higher
price. Id. at 19.

In a letter dated March 28, Coastal was advised that it had not been
selected for award and was provided the following "general reasons" for its
nonselection: "[F]ailed to demonstrate ability to provide real time Lugeon
Values; Did not demonstrate an understanding and application of Lugeon
Values for grouting process; No previous experience with computer monitored
grouting; No [quality control] procedures for grout properties were provided
in proposal; [and] Did not provide discussion of cost control measures or
resources available." Letter from Chairperson, Evaluation Board to Coastal
(Mar. 28, 2000).

Coastal timely filed this protest with our Office on April 12, 2000,
asserting that the evaluation of its proposal was improper because the
evaluators were under the misconception that its proposed telemetry system
did not provide real-time data. [2] Coastal also maintains that it has the
experience required by the solicitation.

The evaluation of technical proposals is primarily the responsibility of the
contracting agency since the agency is responsible for defining its needs
and the best method of accommodating them, and it must bear the burden of
any difficulties resulting from a defective evaluation. Federal Envtl.
Servs., Inc., B-260289, B-260490, May 24, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 261 at 3. In
reviewing protests challenging an agency's evaluation of proposals, we will
not substitute our judgment for that of the agency regarding the merits of
proposals; rather, we will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it
was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria
and applicable statutes and regulations. Id. A protester's mere disagreement
with the agency's evaluation does not render it unreasonable. CORVAC, Inc.,
B-244766, Nov. 13, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 454 at 5.

The agency determined that Coastal's system did not satisfy the solicitation
requirement for real-time computer monitoring of the grouting process.
Coastal asserts in its protest that its system delivers field data with the
same "interval" as hard-wired systems without the disadvantages of a wired
system. Coastal further argues that any delay in transmitting data is
insignificant when compared with the evaluation and execution times of
reacting to the incoming data and making a change in the grouting program.
Protester's Comments at 2-3.

Under the technical approach factor, offerors were required to submit a work
plan that demonstrated its ability to use real-time computer-aided
monitoring to display changing permeabilities during grouting. RFP sect. 00115,
para. 1.5. As noted above, these permeability values were required to be
expressed in Lugeons. The evaluation board determined that Coastal's
proposal failed to demonstrate its ability to provide real-time Lugeon
values in accordance with these solicitation requirements. Agency Report Tab
7, Consensus Scoring Sheets, at 3. Instead, Coastal's proposal showed that
there was an indefinite period of time which elapses between the time the
data is recorded in a computer at the field site and the time the
information is transferred to the computer at the monitoring site. Agency
Report, Tab 18, Affidavit of Stephen T. Hornbeck, P.G. In addition, the
agency determined that Coastal's proposed system did not appear to offer the
required Lugeon values.

While Coastal argues that its proposal demonstrated that it had the
appropriate monitoring equipment and computer software to produce real-time
Lugeon values, it failed to discuss or explain in any detail how its
proposed system provided this capability. On the contrary, Coastal
specifically stated in its proposal that its program provides a method for
storing and analyzing the "near" real-time data and that the program would
be customized to produce calculated Lugeon values. Agency Report, Tab 16,
Coastal Proposal, sect. 1.a, at 2. Thus, notwithstanding Coastal's contention
that the agency misperceived Coastal's proposed system, in fact, Coastal's
proposal expressly indicates noncompliance with the RFP requirement to
provide real-time data, and states that some unspecified program
customization will be needed to permit its system to produce the required
Lugeon values.

In addition, offerors were required to include previous experiences with
both software and hardware to demonstrate successful use of computer
monitoring. The solicitation specifically provided that unproven technology
and an absence of experience with the proposed computer monitoring system
would be evaluated less favorably. RFP sect. 00130, para. 4. Coastal's proposal was
downgraded because it failed to demonstrate previous experience with its
proposed computer monitoring system, and because the board considered
Coastal's system to represent unproven technology. Agency Report, Tab 7,
Consensus Scoring Sheets, at 3. Although Coastal did indicate that several
of its proposed employees, while employed with another firm, had experience
working on the Center Hill Dam project under karstic conditions, Coastal
failed to indicate whether its organization had experience using
computerized monitoring on projects involving karstic conditions. Agency
Report, Tab 16, Coastal's Proposal, sect. 2.a.

In its proposal, Coastal listed one project where it, as a prime contractor,
used a computerized grouting system to monitor grouting, but did not
indicate whether it is the system it proposes to use for this project or
whether the grouting was performed in karstic conditions. [3] Id. Likewise,
it listed three projects where its proposed subcontractor used computerized
grout monitoring but again did not indicate whether it is the same system
proposed here. Accordingly, we see no basis to object to the agency
evaluation in this regard, since Coastal's proposal did not show any
previous company experience with its proposed computer monitoring system.

Coastal's proposal was also downgraded because it failed to provide quality
control procedures. Coastal argues that it reasonably did not propose
specific procedures since the specifications called for all offerors to
perform the same tests to the same standards to ensure quality control on
the project, and it was not necessary to simply reiterate the procedures for
conducting the required quality control tests. Nonetheless, the solicitation
specifically required that offerors describe the quality control procedures
to be used to ensure that grout properties are acceptable prior to the start
of grouting and continue to be acceptable as the work progresses. RFP
sect. 00115, para. 3.b. It is undisputed that Coastal did not provide the required
quality control plan and thus its proposal was reasonably downgraded by the
agency in this regard. [4]

In sum, the evaluation board reasonably evaluated Coastal's low-priced
proposal as materially deficient primarily for failing to offer a system
that provided computer monitoring of grouting in Lugeon values on a
real-time basis, and for failing to show that Coastal had the requisite
computer monitoring experience called for by the RFP. Accordingly, the
agency reasonably determined that Coastal's proposal was technically
unacceptable, and that the proposal could not be considered for award
notwithstanding its low price. Aid Maintenance Co., Inc.; Team Inc.,
B-255552, B-255552.2, Mar. 9, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 188 at 8.

Because the agency reasonably rejected Coastal's proposal as unacceptable,
Coastal lacks the requisite interest to challenge the evaluation of ACT's
proposal and the agency's award decision. A party is not interested to
maintain a protest if it would not be in line for award if the protest were
sustained. 4 C.F.R. sect.sect. 21.0(a), 21.1(a). Here, since the agency reasonably
found Coastal's proposal unacceptable, even if we were to sustain Coastal's
protest of the evaluation of ACT's proposal, one of the other technically
acceptable offerors would be in line for award. Accordingly,

Coastal is not an interested party to challenge the agency's evaluation of
ACT's proposal and the resulting award determination. Collins & Aikman,
Corp., B-247961, July 22, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 41 at 4-5.

The protest is denied.

Robert P. Murphy

General Counsel

Notes

1. A Lugeon is a unit used to measure permeability defined as the flow of a
specified quantity of water per minute per meter of borehole length at a
specified pressure. RFP amend. 0001, sect. 02249, sect. 3.3.1.6.

2. Coastal also argues that its proposal was subject to unreasonable
scrutiny because it did not propose to use the CAGES (Computer Aided
Grouting Engineering System) system. However, this actually reflects the
protester's untimely argument that the specifications were improperly
tailored to favor proposals using the CAGES system. Protests based upon
alleged improprieties in a solicitation which are apparent prior to the
closing time for receipt of proposals must be filed prior to the time for
closing. 4 C.F.R. sect.21.2(a)(1) (2000). Accordingly, this allegation is not
for consideration on the merits.

3. The specified work is to be performed in karstic conditions which,
consistent with the RFP, the board recognized as a particularly complex
geological environment requiring specialized understanding and ability on
the part of the performing contractor. Agency Report, Tab 6, Evaluation
Board Memorandum, at 18.

4. Coastal's proposal was further downgraded for failure to discuss cost
control measures and resources available in case work falls behind schedule.
The solicitation required offerors to provide a projected schedule for the
work, the supplemental resources that were available in the event the work
fell behind schedule, an explanation of cost control measures that were
planned, and the implementation procedures that were to be used if cost
growth became a problem. RFP sect. 00115, para. 3c. In its comments on the agency
report, Coastal states that throughout various sections of its proposal it
described that it had additional equipment which could quickly be mobilized
should quantities overrun. Protester's Comments at 5. Nonetheless, Coastal
simply did not provide a cost control plan as required by the solicitation,
and the agency reasonably downgraded Coastal under this factor.