TITLE:  Carmon Construction, Inc., B-292387; B-292387.3, September 5, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-292387; B-292387.3
DATE:  September 5, 2003
**********************************************************************
Carmon Construction, Inc., B-292387; B-292387.3, September 5, 2003

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective      
Order.  This redacted version has been approved for public release.        

   Decision
    
Matter of:   Carmon Construction, Inc.
    
File:            B-292387; B-292387.3
    
Date:              September 5, 2003
    
David J. Taylor, Esq., Tighe Patton Armstrong Teasdale, for the protester.
Gary L. Brooks, Esq., National Archives and Records Administration, 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
    
Agency properly awarded contract to large business offeror with higher
evaluated price than that of protester, a Historically Underutilized
Business Zone small business concern, where request for proposals provided
for award on a *best value* basis and agency determined that technical
superiority of awardee*s proposal outweighed price differential.
DECISION
    
Carmon Construction, Inc., a Historically Underutilized Business Zone
(HUBZone) small business concern, protests the award of a contract to
Batson-Cook Company, a large business, under request for proposals (RFP)
No. NAMA02SEM0009, issued by the National Archives and Records
Administration for construction of an archives facility in Morrow,
Georgia.  Carmon contends that its offer should have been selected for
award because it represents no significant risk to the government and is
lower in price than Batson-Cook*s after application of the 10 percent
HUBZone price evaluation preference provided for in the RFP.
    

   We deny the protest.
    
The RFP, which was issued on an unrestricted basis on November 15, 2002,
contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose
proposal represented the best value to the government, with technical
factors significantly more important than price.  Technical factors and
their corresponding weights were as follows:  experience (20 percent),
past performance (20 percent), key personnel (20 percent), management plan
and schedule (35 percent), and subcontracting plan (5 percent).
    
The RFP incorporated both Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) S:
52.219-23, Notice of Price Evaluation Adjustment for Small Disadvantaged
Business (SDB) Concerns, and S: 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation
Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns.  Pursuant to the former
clause, the price of each non-SDB offeror was to be evaluated by adding a
factor of 10 percent to the actual price offered, while pursuant to the
latter, the price of each non-HUBZone small business, with the exception
of *[an] otherwise successful offer[] from [a] small business concern[],*
was to be evaluated by adding a factor of 10 percent to the actual price
offered.  RFP, Part II, S: I, at 48, 49; Part IV, S: K at 10.  FAR S:
52.219-4(b)(3) further states that *[a] concern that is both a HUBZone
small business concern and a small disadvantaged business concern will
receive the benefit of both the HUBZone small business price evaluation
preference and the small disadvantaged business price evaluation
adjustment.*
    
The RFP at S:S: M3.3 and M3.4 furnished additional guidance with regard to
the application of the SDB price evaluation adjustment and the HUBZone
price evaluation preference, as follows:
    
M3.3.  Price Evaluation Adjustment (PEA)
The PEA will be used in the event that a small disadvantaged business
(SDB) meets the following three criteria:
a.      The SDB must be located within the following regions:  middle
atlantic, east south central, east north central and west south central.
b.      The SDB must perform work in the following (formerly) SIC Major
Group:  15.
c.      The SDB has not waived the right to a PEA.
If a SDB meets the above criteria and its price is fair and reasonable, a
PEA factor of 10% will be added to the prices of non-qualifying
contractors.
    
M3.4.  HUBZone Price Evaluation Preference (PEP)
    
The Hub Zone PEP will be used in the event that a company is certified to
be a Hub Zone by the Small Business Administration and its price is fair
and reasonable.  A PEP factor of 10% will be added to the prices of
non-qualifying contractors.
    
Nine proposals were received by the January 24, 2003 closing date.  The
evaluators rated the proposals of Batson-Cook and Offeror A as technically
excellent; the proposals of Offerors B, C, and D as technically very good;
and the proposals of Carmon and Offerors E, F, and G as technically
good.[1]  The evaluators adjusted offerors* prices by adding to them the
following factors:  the six large businesses (Batson-Cook and Offerors A,
B, C, D, and G), 10 percent plus 10 percent; Carmon, which represented
itself as a HUBZone small business, but not as an SDB,
10 percent; and Offerors E and F, which claimed both SDB and HUBZone small
business status, 10 percent.  With regard to the final adjustment, the
agency explains that the evaluation board believed that it had discretion
to deny the benefit of both the SDB PEA and the HUBZone PDP to Offerors E
and F because their base offers exceeded the low base offer by more than
10 percent and could therefore *be determined to be not fair and
reasonable.*  Agency Report at 2.  Based on the foregoing adjustments, the
board evaluated Carmon*s price as approximately
5 percent lower than Batson-Cook*s and the lowest overall.  The evaluators
determined that the greater technical merit of Batson-Cook*s proposal was
worth the additional 5 percent in price, however, and that the Batson-Cook
proposal represented the best value to the government.  On May 23, the
agency awarded a contract to Batson-Cook.
    
Upon receipt of protests from Carmon and two other offerors, the
contracting officer reviewed the price analysis and determined that it
contained errors.  The contracting officer concluded that the adjustment
to the large businesses* prices had been improperly calculated and that
Offerors E and F, which claimed both SDB and HUBZone small business
status, *may have been entitled to the benefit of both SDB and HUBZone
adjustments.*  Id. at 3.  After correcting the price adjustments, the
source selection evaluation board reconvened to review its award
recommendation. The evaluation board again determined that the proposal of
Batson-Cook, which was essentially equal technically to, and lower in
price than, Offeror A*s, and which had received a technical score
*considerably higher* than the other seven proposals, represented the best
value to the government.  Id. at 7.  The source selection authority
affirmed the board*s determination.
    
The protester argues that the agency has failed to justify adequately the
selection of a proposal higher in evaluated price than its own.  Carmon
contends that it *has clearly demonstrated, on very similar projects, a
high level of competence, integrity and on-time, on-cost performance,* and
that *[t]here is therefore no reason for the government to pay more,
unless it clearly demonstrates that it has significant, clearly
justifiable reasons to do so.*  Protester*s Comments at 7.  Carmon further
maintains that *[t]o say that the 10% PEP applies, but then to fail to
really apply the PEP, but rather to justify on *best value* grounds,
without rigorous analysis, flies in the face of the entire Congressional
intent of the [HUBZone] program.*  Id.
    
The record does not support the protester*s assertion that the agency has
failed to justify its selection of Batson-Cook*s proposal for award.  The
RFP provided that technical factors would be *significantly more
important* than price in the selection process, and Batson-Cook*s proposal
received a technical score considerably higher than Carmon*s (90 versus
77.43).  Moreover, the evaluators found that Batson-Cook*s proposal
represented a *very high* probability of success, whereas Carmon*s
represented only a *good* probability.  In addition, the SSEB report
establishes that the evaluators had a basis for--and the protester has not
challenged--the scoring of proposals.  Under the most important technical
evaluation factor, management plan and schedule, for example, the
evaluators assigned Batson-Cook*s proposal a score of 90 and Carmon*s
proposal a score of 76.67, noting that Batson-Cook*s management plan
narrative was excellent and that it had provided a project schedule
shorter than that required by the RFP, while Carmon*s management plan
narrative was merely *pretty good,* its project schedule met (but did not
exceed) the RFP*s requirement, and its plan to have the project manager
run the project from the home office 2 days per month constituted a
significant weakness.  SSEB Report at 31, 43.
    
The protester argues that the agency*s trade-off determination is not
sufficiently detailed because it does not explain on a point-by-point
comparative basis why Batson-Cook*s proposal is worth a higher evaluated
price than Carmon*s.  The SSEB explained in its supplemental report that
in its view, *Batson-Cook*s proposal represents the best opportunity for
NARA to complete the project on time and with a minimum of risk,* and
that, because *[Batson-Cook*s proposal] represents the highest probability
of a successful project[,] . . . its selection is worth the difference of
[sic] lower priced proposals that were evaluated only Good and Very
Good.*  Supplemental SSEB Report at 11.  While the evaluators did not
engage in a point-by-point comparison of proposals in their trade-off
analysis, it is clear from the initial evaluation report, which summarized
the evaluators* assessment of each proposal under each evaluation factor,
that the evaluators were aware of the technical strengths and weaknesses
of each offeror*s proposal.  In this connection, while the selection
official*s judgment must be documented in sufficient detail to show it is
not arbitrary, a failure to discuss every detail regarding the relative
merit of the proposals in the selection decision document does not affect
the validity of the decision where, as here, the record shows that the
agency*s award decision was reasonable.  Science Application Int*l Corp.,
B-290971 et al., Oct. 16, 2002, 2002 CPD P: 184 at 20.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    
    

   ------------------------

   [1] In accordance with the source selection plan, point scores of 90-100
received adjectival ratings of excellent; point scores of 80-89 received
adjectival ratings of very good; and point scores of 70-79 received
adjectival ratings of good.