TITLE:   Dennis Cantrell, B-289169, December 19, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-289169
DATE:  December 19, 2001
**********************************************************************
Decision

Matter of: Dennis Cantrell

File: B-289169

Date: December 19, 2001

Dennis Cantrell for the protester.

Alan D. Groesbeck, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.

Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency's decision to make award based on a higher technically-rated,
higher-priced proposal is unobjectionable where the agency reasonably
determined that the awardee's significantly greater experience in the
solicited work was worth the relatively modest price premium.

DECISION

Dennis Cantrell protests the award of a contract to Family Enterprises, Inc.
under request for proposals (RFP) No. R8-03-01-05, issued by the Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture, for reconstruction of a portion of the
Bartram Trail in northern Georgia. Cantrell contends that the agency's
selection decision was unreasonable.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued July 15, 2001, contemplated the award of a fixed-price
contract for the reconstruction of a 13.5-mile portion of the Bartram Trail.
The solicitation established three technical factors: experience (worth 30
percent), quality of service (worth 40 percent), and timeliness of
performance (worth 30 percent). The RFP notified offerors that price was of
approximately equal importance to the technical evaluation factors. The
solicitation stated that the award "will be made to that offeror (1) whose
proposal is technically acceptable and (2) [whose] technical/cost
relationship is the most advantageous to the government." RFP sect. M.

Five proposals, including those of Mr. Cantrell and Family Enterprises, were
submitted by the August 15 due date. Mr. Cantrell submitted the
lowest-priced offer of $96,725.49 and Family Enterprises the second-lowest
price of $102,767.50. The technical evaluation scores of the two highest
rated proposals of Mr. Cantrell and Family Enterprises were as follows:

 Technical Factor    Family Enterprises   Dennis Cantrell

 Experience          29.3                 20

 Quality             38.7                 37.7

 Timeliness          29.3                 27.7

 Total               97.3                 85.4

Agency Report, Tab 17, Technical Evaluation Score Record. The technical
evaluation panel's written report to the contracting officer included the
evaluation scores, scoring worksheets, strengths, and weaknesses of all five
offerors. As indicated by the scores, the evaluation report found that the
proposals of Family Enterprises and Mr. Cantrell were similarly strong with
regard to both quality and timeliness, but that the proposals differed as to
experience. The evaluation panel noted that Family Enterprises' experience
consisted of "15 individual trail contracts with one of these being on this
forest," while Mr. Cantrell's experience consisted of "one trail contract
and several bridge contracts." [1] Agency Report, Tab 16, Technical
Evaluation Panel Report, at 1-2.

In comparing the proposals of Family Enterprises and Mr. Cantrell, the
contracting officer found that Family Enterprises' proposal enjoyed a
substantial advantage over Mr. Cantrell's proposal under the experience
factor. The contracting officer noted that notwithstanding the "exceptional
quality on the work previously performed" by both offerors, "the depth of
experience and knowledge offered by Family Enterprises is a significant
advantage" that represents "real value to the Forest Service." The
contracting officer determined that Family Enterprises' superior technical
proposal outweighed the $6,042 price advantage of Mr. Cantrell's lower-rated
proposal, and awarded the contract accordingly. Agency Report, Tab 15,
Source Selection Decision, at 2. Following a debriefing, this protest
followed.

Mr. Cantrell protests the agency's award selection decision. The protester
argues that given the close technical ranking of the offerors, the agency's
decision to make award to a company whose price is several thousand dollars
higher was improper and did not actually represent best value to the
government.

In a best-value acquisition, agencies are not required to make award on the
basis of low cost or price; agencies may make price/technical tradeoffs, and
the extent to which one is sacrificed for the other is governed only by the
test of rationality and consistency with the stated evaluation criteria.
KPMG Peat Marwick, L.L.P., B-271673, July 15, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 53 at 5.
Here, in reaching her decision to select Family Enterprises for award, the
contracting officer weighed the price and technical differences between the
two proposals. She noted, correctly, that "[t]he critical factor in making
any cost/technical tradeoff is not the spread between the technical scores,
but rather what is the significance of that difference." The contracting
officer observed that Family Enterprises had "more extensive trail building
experience using Forest Service Standard Trail Specifications and more
experience in practical application of the specifications to on-the-ground
conditions" than did Mr. Cantrell. She judged the technical advantage
relevant: "This gives Family Enterprises a much greater depth of experience
they can draw upon when faced with situations in the field during the
performance of the work." Agency Report, Tab 15, Source Selection Decision,
at 2. The contracting officer thus concluded that the technical superiority
of Family Enterprises' proposal justified the price premium involved. Based
on our review, the contracting officer's award selection decision is
reasonable, supported by the evaluation record, and consistent with the
evaluation criteria. [2]

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

Notes

1. Mr. Cantrell had recently completed a separate reconstruction contract
for an adjoining 4.7-mile section of the Bartram Trail, where he received an
excellent rating for the work performed.

2. The protester, in its comments on the agency report, contends that the
agency's scoring of its proposal as to timeliness was unreasonable. Mr.
Cantrell alleges that the agency's evaluation here (27.6 out of 30 points)
was inconsistent with his exemplary record of timeliness. However, the
contracting officer found Mr. Cantrell comparable to Family Enterprises'
near-perfect score for timeliness; the determinative factor in the
cost/technical tradeoff was the superior experience provided by Family
Enterprises. Agency Report, Tab 15, Source Selection Decision. Since even
changing Mr. Cantrell's timeliness score to a perfect 30/30 would thus not
affect the award selection, we need not resolve this issue.