TITLE:  Hedgecock Electric, Inc., B-285655, September 8, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-285655
DATE:  September 8, 2000
**********************************************************************
Hedgecock Electric, Inc., B-285655, September 8, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Hedgecock Electric, Inc.

File: B-285655

Date: September 8, 2000

Terrance R. Ketchel, Esq., for the protester.

Richard D. Lieberman, Esq., McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, for Webb Electric
Company of North Florida, Inc., an intervenor.

Wilson J. Campbell, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the
agency.

Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Agency's downgrading of protester's proposal under technical requirements
factor (safety control procedures subfactor) was reasonable where proposal
did not demonstrate familiarity with safety manual listed in solicitation,
and did not provide details of safety or quality control plans; downgrading
of proposal under small business subcontracting effort factor was reasonable
where solicitation specifically instructed offerors to state their
subcontracting goals, and proposal contained only general statement that
contracts performed by the offeror normally do not require the use of
subcontractors.

2. Agency's decision to select higher-priced, higher technically rated
proposal was reasonable where solicitation permitted selection of other than
the lowest-priced proposal and agency specifically determined that, due to
technical merit of awardee's proposal and weaknesses in protester's,
awardee's higher-priced proposal provided the best value to the government.

DECISION

Hedgecock Electric, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Webb Electric
Company of North Florida, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
N68950-99-R-0199, issued by the Department of the Navy for the construction
of primary and secondary duct banks, pad mounted transformers, pad mounted
switchgear, primary and secondary cable, secondary switch boards and
incidental related site work at the Naval Training Center in Great Lakes,
Illinois. Hedgecock argues that the Navy improperly evaluated its proposal
and performed an irrational price/technical tradeoff. [1]

We deny the protest.

The solicitation provided for a best-value analysis based on an evaluation
of the following factors (and subfactors): past performance and relevant
project experience; technical requirements (project organization and
personnel,
management control system, quality control system, and safety control
procedures); small business subcontracting effort, and price. The
solicitation further provided that the technical factors combined would be
considered approximately equal to price in the award decision, and that the
agency intended to make award on the basis of initial proposals.

Six offerors responded to the solicitation. A technical evaluation board
(TEB) assigned the technical proposals a rating under each factor and
subfactor, and an overall rating (highly acceptable, acceptable, marginal or
unacceptable). Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2. Hedgecock's
proposal was lowest priced and received an overall rating of acceptable,
with ratings of highly acceptable under past performance/relevant project
experience, and marginal under technical requirements and small business
subcontracting effort. TEB Report at 1. Webb's proposal was the second
lowest priced (6.55 percent higher priced than Hedgecock's), and received an
overall rating of highly acceptable, with ratings of highly acceptable for
both past performance/relevant project experience and technical
requirements, and acceptable for small business subcontracting effort. Id.
Following the evaluation, the source selection board (SSB) performed a
price/technical tradeoff and selected Webb for award. Source Selection (SS)
Report
at 3.

Hedgecock protests that the Navy improperly rated its proposal marginal
under the technical requirements factor based on the safety control
procedures subfactor. Specifically, Hedgecock asserts that, despite its
experienced management team and good safety record, its proposal was
downgraded because it did not demonstrate that Hedgecock was well versed
with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Safety Manual EM 385-1-1. Hedgecock
asserts that this downgrading was unwarranted, since every experienced
contractor in electrical distribution systems is well versed in this safety
manual.

The evaluation of proposals is a matter within the discretion of the
contracting agency; our Office will question an evaluation only where it
lacks a reasonable basis or conflicts with the stated evaluation criteria
for award. Stratus Sys., Inc., B-281645, Feb. 24, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 67 at 3.

The evaluation of Hedgecock's proposal under the technical requirement
factor was reasonable and consistent with the RFP. The RFP specifically
advised with respect to the safety control procedures subfactor that
offerors should focus on the steps that will promote safety during
construction. RFP at 5. The RFP also specifically indicated that publication
EM 385-1-1 formed part of the specification. Id., sect. 01450, at 1. This being
the case, it was entirely reasonable for the Navy to consider whether an
offeror demonstrated familiarity with this publication in assessing the
offeror's proposal under the safety control procedures subfactor. The fact
that Hedgecock claims it and other experienced electrical distribution
contractors are familiar with this publication is not a basis for finding
the evaluation unreasonable. It was Hedgecock's responsibility to provide
all information necessary to evaluate its proposal; the Navy was not
required to assume that Hedgecock had knowledge not demonstrated in the
firm's proposal. Robotic Sys. Tech., B-278195.2, Jan. 7, 1998,
98-1 CPD para. 20 at 9. In any case, Hedgecock's proposal was not downgraded
under the technical requirements factor based solely on safety control
procedures or the firm's familiarity with EM 385-1-1. Rather, the TEB also
downgraded the proposal because, while the RFP specifically advised offerors
to focus on the steps that would be taken to control project quality,
Hedgecock did not provide details with respect to the structure of its
quality control plan. In addition, the Navy was concerned because
Hedgecock's quality control manager reported directly to the project
manager, bringing his independence into question, and because Hedgecock did
not indicate how subcontractors would be managed. [2] TEB Report at 3.

Hedgecock also asserts that its proposal improperly was rated marginal under
the small business subcontracting effort factor. The RFP provided with
respect to this factor that proposals were to include information regarding
the offeror's past efforts subcontracting with small businesses, RFP at 5,
and were to set forth the proposed subcontracting effort for this contract.
Id. at 6. Hedgecock's proposal was rated marginal under this factor because,
while the TEB expected that the successful contractor would subcontract
asbestos work, asphalt work and landscaping. SS Report at 2, Hedgecock did
not propose subcontracting with any small businesses. Hedgecock Proposal,
Factor C - Small Business Subcontracting Effort; TEB Small Business
Evaluation Worksheet.

Hedgecock explains that it did not furnish a small business subcontracting
effort, and that the downgrading of its proposal on this basis therefore was
unreasonable, because it did not intend to subcontract any of the work. In
this regard, Hedgecock's proposal stated that "[c]ontracts performed by
Hedgecock normally do not require the use of subcontractors." Hedgecock
Proposal, Factor C -- Small Business Subcontracting Effort. Hedgecock
believes this statement was sufficient to indicate to the Navy that it did
not plan to subcontract. We do not agree. Given that the agency anticipated
that subcontracting would be necessary and that the RFP specifically asked
for proposed subcontracting, the agency reasonably could expect offerors to
commit to a subcontracting approach in their proposals. If Hedgecock did not
intend to subcontract any of the work, it should have unequivocally stated
so in its proposal; the statement that it "normally" does not subcontract
electrical contracts did not constitute a commitment by Hedgecock to perform
this contract without subcontracting. Again, as stated above, it is the
offeror's responsibility to submit a proposal that has all required
information for evaluation purposes.

Finally, Hedgecock challenges the agency's price/technical tradeoff.
Hedgecock asserts that, given that its past performance is equal to or
better than Webb's, and that its management team is superior to Webb's, the
agency's conclusion that Hedgecock is not capable of providing performance
that is acceptable or superior to Webb's at a lower price was unreasonable.

In a best-value procurement such as this, a procuring agency properly may
select for award a higher-rated technical proposal with a higher cost, where
the agency determines that the cost premium is justified considering the
technical superiority of the selected proposal. Cobra Techs., Inc., B-280475
et al., Oct. 6, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 98 at 7-8. The Navy performed a
price/technical tradeoff here, as required, and reasonably concluded that
Webb's proposal offered the best value to the government. [3]

The source selection report shows that the agency considered the ratings of
the proposals and, more specifically, the strengths and weaknesses of each
proposal under each factor, in making its award decision. The report noted
that Webb had highly acceptable past performance, an outstanding management
team, an outstanding quality control and safety program, and acceptable
small business subcontracting goals. The only weakness identified was Webb's
failure to propose to meet the agency's goals for subcontracting with
HUBZone businesses. SS Report at 3. In contrast, while Hedgecock had highly
acceptable past performance and a strong management team, its proposal was
rated only marginal under the technical requirements and small business
subcontracting effort factors for failure to demonstrate a strong quality
control/safety plan and failure to propose any subcontracting effort. Id. at
2. Against the background of these evaluation findings, the agency
recognized that Webb's price was 6.55 percent higher than Hedgecock's, and
specifically concluded that the weaknesses in Hedgecock's proposal made
Webb's proposal worth its additional cost. Id. at 3. Given that price and
technical factors had equal weight in the award decision, there is no basis
for objecting to this conclusion.

The protest is denied.

Robert P. Murphy

General Counsel

Notes

1. Hedgecock filed its protest in our Office on June 13, 2000, and the
agency submitted its report in response to the protest on July 13. Hedgecock
then submitted comments in response to the agency report on July 28, an
extended due date established by our Office in response to Hedgecock's
request. In these comments, Hedgecock for the first time challenged the
evaluation of Webb's proposal under each evaluation factor, and the
evaluation of its own proposal under the past performance/relevant project
experience factor; it also argued that the agency should have asked the firm
clarification questions with respect to the small business subcontracting
effort portion of its proposal. Protest arguments such as these, which are
not based on solicitation improprieties, must be raised no later than
10 days after the basis of protest is known or should have been known. Bid
Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2000). Since Hedgecock learned
the bases of these additional protest grounds, at the latest, when it
received the agency report on July 13, Hedgecock was required to raise these
arguments no later than July 24 (the Monday following the tenth calendar day
after receipt). Since Hedgecock did not raise the arguments until July 28,
they are untimely. We note that an extension of time for filing comments on
an agency report does not serve to extend the time for filing new protest
grounds learned from the report. SDS Petroleum Prods., Inc.,
B-280430, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 59 at 3-4 n.3.

2. In contrast, Webb's quality control and safety programs were rated
"outstanding." SS Report at 2.

3. In its initial protest, Hedgecock also argued that the agency improperly
failed to hold discussions with Hedgecock with respect to the technical
requirements factor, and questioned whether the Navy may have improperly
favored Webb. The agency responded to these allegations in its protest
report, and Hedgecock did not further address them in it comments.
Accordingly, we consider these issues abandoned. Technical Support Servs.,
Inc., B-279665, B-279665.2, July 8, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 26
at 1 n.1.