TITLE:  Structural Preservation Systems, Inc., B-285085, July 14, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-285085
DATE:  July 14, 2000
**********************************************************************
Structural Preservation Systems, Inc., B-285085, July 14, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Structural Preservation Systems, Inc.

File: B-285085

Date: July 14, 2000

Joel S. Rubinstein, Esq., and Andrew N. Cook, Esq., Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, 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

1. Allegation that agency misevaluated awardee's proposal is denied where
the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with
the evaluation criteria.

2. Award to offeror submitting technically higher-rated, higher-priced
proposal is unobjectionable where solicitation stated that price and
technical factors were of equal weight and the agency reasonably determined
that the proposal's technical superiority warranted payment of the
associated price premium.

DECISION

Structural Preservation Systems, Inc. (SPS) 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. SPS objects to
the agency's evaluation of ACT's proposal and contends that as the
low-priced offeror, it should have received the award under a proper
tradeoff.

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 were to be refined as
work progressed to achieve a residual permeability specified in "Lugeons."
[1] RFP at l. Real time computer monitoring with visual display of
foundation permeabilities using electronic sensing of grouting parameters to
determine these permeabilities was also called for. 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 and 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 of 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.
These consensus scoring sheets represent the complete documentary evidence
underlying the board's evaluation process. Agency Report at 3. [2] The
evaluation board point scoring of SPS's and ACT's proposals at the factor
level (with the maximum available points in parentheses) was as follows:

                                 SPS          ACT

 Technical Approach (40,000)     34,500       37,000

 Experience (30,000)             21,500       26,000

 Management (15,000)             9,000        13,000

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

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

 Total Points (100,000)          76,500       86,500

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

The total prices proposed by these offerors were:

 SPS          $1,397,725

 ACT          $1,594,205

Id. at 12.

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.
Under the experience factor, ACT was awarded additional points because of
its performance of a substantial number of similar type of projects
utilizing similar grouting, and because ACT and its proposed subcontractor
worked together on several similar projects since 1997. Id. at 3, 16.

In performing its best value assessment, the board directly compared ACT's
highest-scored proposal with SPS's second highest scored proposal, which
also had been recognized as demonstrating a clear and concise understanding
of the requirement. The board considered that SPS did not demonstrate a
project where it utilized real time computer monitoring software for
stabilized grout in Karst topography, [3] while ACT had demonstrated the use
of real time computer monitoring software and stabilized grout at the Penn
Forest Dam Replacement Project. SPS did not designate a computer technician
for the project, while 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) systems 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. While SPS demonstrated that it
had experience with "alternate monitoring systems" and "manual calculation
of Lugeon values," the agency concluded that the recorder monitoring
referenced by SPS did not qualify as experience with real time monitoring in
Lugeon values as sought by the RFP. The board found that both ACT and SPS
presented a detailed engineering analysis of geological and engineering
information contained in the RFP. However, while ACT's proposal demonstrated
a clear understanding of the geology of the site and application of the
hardware/software to successfully complete the project despite the potential
high variability of subsurface conditions, the agency found that SPS simply
focused on the requirements outlined in the specification and actual
completion of work and did not go into as great detail of its application of
the hardware/software program. Id. at 15-17. Based upon a comparison of the
respective technical merit of the ACT and SPS proposals, the agency
concluded that ACT's technically superior, low risk proposal represented the
best value to the government despite its associated higher price. Id. at 19.

In a letter dated March 28, SPS was advised that it had not been selected
for award and was provided the following "general reasons" for its
nonselection: "[d]id not designate Computer Technician that demonstrated
experience in real time computer monitoring system; [a]ssignments of
individuals for this project were stated as ‘tentative'; and
[d]emonstrated limited experience with subcontractor." Letter from
Chairperson, Evaluation Board to SPS (Mar. 28, 2000).

SPS filed this protest with our Office on April 6. [4] In addition to
questioning the propriety of ACT's proposal evaluation, SPS contends that
the cost/technical tradeoff appears to be improper because its price of
$1,397,725 was 14.06 percent less than ACT's price of $1,594,205 while ACT's
technical scoring advantage was only 13.07 percent. Protester's Comments at
1.

The protester first objects to the proposal evaluation on the basis that,
because the individual evaluation sheets were discarded, it is impossible to
determine whether or not proposals were properly evaluated. We do not agree.
The record includes the consensus scores of the evaluation board, which
incorporated comments by individual evaluators, and a detailed and
reasonable evaluation and comparison of the two highest-rated proposals.
This record clearly documents the differences perceived among proposals and
their strengths, weaknesses and risks. Accordingly, the evaluators' notes
and scoring sheets are not necessary to judge the rationality of the
evaluations. See Hydraudyne Sys. and Eng'g B.V., B-241236, B-241236.2, Jan.
30, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 88 at 4-5.

The protester next contends that the agency failed to follow its own
evaluation procedures. The protester points out that the evaluation
procedure described in the evaluation memorandum indicates that for each of
the factors or sub-factors, initial points awarded were half the total
points available. Points were to be added if an offeror's proposal exceeded
the minimum requirements and deducted if the offeror's proposal did not meet
the minimum requirements. The protester asserts that a review of the
consensus report shows that, while additive points were given, there were no
deductions for offerors that failed to meet minimum requirements. [5]

The solicitation indicated that proposals would be point scored without
stating how any evaluation factor or sub-factor would be scored. The actual
scoring procedure utilized by the agency was described in its source
selection plan and in the consensus evaluation report. The protester's
assertion that the agency failed to follow its source selection plan does
not provide any basis to sustain the protest. Source selection plans provide
internal agency guidelines and, as such, do not give outside parties any
rights. Centech Group, Inc., B-278904.4, Apr. 13, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 149 at 7
n.4. It is the evaluation scheme in the RFP, not internal agency documents,
such as a source selection plan, to which an agency is required to adhere in
evaluating proposals and in making the source selection. Id. In any event,
the evaluation of ACT's proposal does not reflect any failure to meet
minimum requirements which would have warranted point deductions, nor does
the protester point to any such deficiencies.

The protester also argues that ACT's proposal was improperly awarded
additional points for factors not identified as evaluation criteria in the
RFP, namely for prior experience with the Corps of Engineers, for the number
of projects completed, and for understanding the work, when the RFP
contemplated additional points for recent successful experience in grouting
Karstic terrain with stabilized grouts and dealing with the unknowns
associated with such work, while lack of this experience would result in
scoring that is less favorable. Protester's Comments at 2.

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.

We find the agency's evaluation of ACT's experience unobjectionable. Where
technical evaluation criteria are used to enable the agency to make
comparative judgments about the relative merits of competing proposals,
offerors are on notice that qualitative distinctions among competing
proposals will be made under the various evaluation factors. FMS Corp.,
B-255191, Feb. 8, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 182 at 5-6. Here, under the experience
factor, denominated as qualifications and experience by the RFP, the
solicitation provided that offerors would be evaluated on the extent and
quality of recent experience, including the similarity, type and size of
projects. Further, documentation of successful completion of similar
projects was to be favorably considered, as was "[p]revious working
relationship and experience with any subcontractors proposed for this work."
RFP sect. 00130, para. 4. Thus, credit for understanding in the sense of
documentation of the successful completion of a substantial number of
similar projects was expressly contemplated by the solicitation. Further, an
agency properly may take into account specific, albeit not expressly
identified, matters that are logically encompassed by or related to the
stated evaluation criteria. FMS Corp., supra, at 6. Here, in substance, the
agency evaluation credited ACT for demonstrating experience in performing a
significant number of recent Corps of Engineers projects that were similar
to the Patoka Lake project and involved extensive computer monitoring. These
factors reasonably relate to the experience evaluation criteria, and the
agency reasonably credited ACT's proposal for these demonstrated
qualifications.

SPS next argues that under the RFP evaluation system where technical and
cost were to be equally weighted, its cost advantage outweighed ACT's
technical advantage. Agency officials have broad discretion in determining
the manner and extent to which they will make use of the technical and cost
evaluation results. Price/technical tradeoffs may be made, and the extent to
which one is sacrificed for the other is governed by the test of rationality
and consistency with the established evaluation factors. 841 Assocs., L.P.;
Curtis Ctr. Ltd. Partnership, B-257863, B-257863.2, Nov. 17, 1994, 94-2 CPD
para. 193 at 7. This discretion exists even where price and technical factors
are of equal weight. We will not disturb awards to offerors with higher
technical merit and higher prices so long as the result is consistent with
the evaluation factors and the agency has reasonably determined that the
technical superiority outweighs the price difference. Id.

As indicated above, the agency made a detailed comparison between the
proposals submitted by SPS and ACT comparing the advantages and
disadvantages of both proposals under each evaluation criterion. The record
shows that the agency reasonably found that ACT's proposal had demonstrated
advantages over SPS in the three most important of the five technical
evaluation factors. The agency particularly recognized the importance of a
contractor's ability to properly conduct computer-aided monitoring of the
grouting operations in real time Lugeon values and determined that ACT's
demonstrated understanding of the project through its superior technical
approach and extensive experience and expertise was worth the associated
additional cost. The determination that ACT's technical superiority was
worth the additional cost was consistent with the RFP and well within the
agency's discretion. Notwithstanding the protester's assumption that this
tradeoff should have been based on a mechanical comparison of the respective
percentage differences between the two offerors' price and technical scores,
there is no requirement that selection of a higher-priced proposal be
justified through an exact quantification of the dollar value to the agency
of the proposals technical superiority. Kay and Assocs., Inc., B-258243.7,
Sept. 7, 1995, 96-1 CPD para. 266 at 6. Accordingly, the tradeoff and the
resulting award determination are unobjectionable.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General

of the United States

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. The agency explains that its practice is to incorporate into the
consensus sheets any pertinent and relevant comments made by individual
evaluators in the initial process. Agency Report at 3. As a result, the
consensus scoring sheets become the documentation supporting the evaluation
process, and the individual sheets are discarded. Id.

3. The specified work is to be performed in Karstic conditions which,
consistent with paragraph 4 of the RFP, the board recognized as a
particularly complex geological environment requiring specialized
understanding and ability on the part of the performing contractor.
Id. at 18.

4. In its initial protest, SPS essentially objected to the award to ACT on
the grounds that SPS submitted the lowest-priced proposal and asserted that
the technical concerns about its proposal were unjustified and could have
easily been resolved through discussions. The agency report responded to
these allegations, and the protester's comments failed to address the
agency's responses. As a result, we consider these issues to be abandoned
and will not address them. Datum Timing, Div. of Datum Inc., B-254493, Dec.
17, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 328 at 5.

5. The protester also asserts that ACT's proposal was awarded 5,500 points
out of a possible 6,000 points under the management plan sub-factor, with no
enhancements identified to warrant the addition. SPS contends that ACT's
proposal should have received only 3,000 points for its management plan.
Protester's Comments at 2. This assertion is simply factually misplaced
since the consensus score sheets specifically recognize five management plan
enhancements for ACT, Agency Report, Tab 7, ACT Consensus Report, at 5, each
of which has a value of 500 points under the evaluation scoring plan that
was used. Agency Report, Tab 6, Evaluation Board Memorandum, app. A, at 21.