TITLE: B-297011.3; B-297011.4, Nicholson/Soletanche Joint Venture, April 20, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297011.3; B-297011.4
DATE: April 20, 2006
**************************************************************************
B-297011.3; B-297011.4, Nicholson/Soletanche Joint Venture, April 20, 2006

   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: Nicholson/Soletanche Joint Venture

   File: B-297011.3; B-297011.4

   Date: April 20, 2006

   Brian P. Waagner, Esq., Elizabeth M. Gill, Esq., and J. Michael
   Littlejohn, Esq., Wickwire Gavin, P.C., for the protester.

   Robert K. Cox, Esq., Robert G. Barbour, Esq., Kevin J. McKeon, Esq., and
   Hanna L. Blake, Esq., Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP, for Brayman
   Construction Corporation, an intervenor.

   Willie J. Williams, Esq., United States Army Corps of Engineers, for the
   agency.

   Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest is denied where the agency reasonably evaluated proposals in
   accordance with the terms of the solicitation and where the solicitation
   provided that the combined technical evaluation factors were significantly
   more important than price, the agency reasonably selected for award a
   higher technically rated, slightly higher priced proposal.

   DECISION

   Nicholson/Soletanche Joint Venture (NSJV) protests the award of a contract
   to Brayman Construction Corporation (BCC) under request for proposals
   (RFP) No. W91237-05-R-0005, issued by the United States Army Corps of
   Engineers for dam safety assurance requirements at Bluestone Dam in
   Hinton, West Virginia. NSJV protests the evaluation of proposals and the
   selection of BCC's higher technically rated, slightly higher priced
   proposal for award.

   We deny the protest.[1]

   BACKGROUND

   In this procurement, the Bluestone Dam, which is over 50 years old, is to
   be upgraded to meet current engineering standards. More specifically, the
   dam, which is comprised of concrete monoliths, is to be renovated through
   the installation of high capacity rock anchors which will prevent the dam
   from overturning or sliding downstream during extreme flood events. Under
   the contract, 150 multi-strand, steel-cabled anchors will be installed.
   Because the alignment of the anchors is critical, the anchor holes will be
   drilled using a procedure called "directional drilling," which will allow
   the holes to be drilled with greater precision.

   The RFP was issued on March 4, 2005 and contemplated the award of a
   fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal conformed to the RFP
   and was determined to be most advantageous to the government, considering
   price and the following technical evaluation factors: (1) planned
   technical execution of key work elements; (2) past performance; and (3)
   project management, quality control, key personnel, and schedule. (These
   evaluation factors were listed in descending order of importance, with
   factor (1) being considered significantly more important than factors (2)
   and (3).)

   Factor (1)--planned technical execution of key work elements--contained
   the following three subfactors, listed in descending order of importance:
   (1) drilling techniques; (2) anchor installment; and (3) site use and
   access. As relevant here, under the drilling techniques subfactor, an
   offeror was to describe the directional drilling method to be used to meet
   specified drilling tolerances and to substantiate that the directional
   drilling method would have real time survey control and directional
   correction. The RFP, as amended, stated that the directional drilling
   "should" be performed by a firm which had at least 3 years of experience
   engaged in directional drilling; the amended RFP required the driller to
   have drilled holes using directional drilling techniques at specified
   drilling tolerances on at least two projects. RFP amend. 3, at 2.

   Factor (2)--past performance--required an offeror to provide a list of
   relevant projects, current or completed, in the past 8 years that best
   demonstrated the firm's performance with "this type or similar types" of
   projects. Id. The amended RFP stated that an offeror "should" include in
   its proposal information related to its prior experience with installing
   high capacity anchors, with designing anchor heads for such anchors, and
   with installing full length corrosion protection. In addition, an offeror
   was to provide a list of major subcontractors proposed for use on the
   project, including their roles in the project and their relevant past
   performance and experience in the particular work they will perform. As
   relevant here, the RFP listed Construction Drilling, Inc. (CDI), a small
   specialty contractor, as an industry contact for directional drilling.

   Factor (3)--project management, quality control, key personnel, and
   schedule--required an offeror to describe how the construction process
   would be managed, including providing an organizational chart summarizing
   the resources and key site personnel to be used on the project. The RFP
   also required an offeror to describe its on-site safety program, including
   key safety personnel.

   In determining the proposal most advantageous to the government, the RFP
   stated that the combined technical evaluation factors were significantly
   more important than price;[2] however, as the evaluated merit of competing
   technical proposals became more equal, total price would become more
   important in the selection. The RFP also stated that total price could
   become the determining factor for selection, depending upon whether the
   most acceptable technical proposal was determined to be worth any price
   differential. The RFP specifically reserved the right for the agency to
   award to other than the lowest priced offeror.

   Following the evaluation of initial technical and price proposals (and as
   part of the previously noted corrective action), the agency conducted
   technical and price discussions with NSJV and BCC, identifying for both
   firms the weakest areas of their respective technical proposals and how
   their total prices compared to the government estimate. Both firms were
   told that they had the option to prepare a revised technical and price
   proposal before a final decision was made concerning the award of the
   contract. The primary issue in this protest involves the agency's
   evaluation of the NSJV and BCC proposals for the performance of the
   directional drilling requirements. For context, this decision includes a
   description of the directional drilling approaches proposed by the two
   firms in their respective initial proposals.

   In their initial proposals, NSJV and BCC each proposed to "self-perform"
   some of the directional drilling requirements, working with CDI as a
   directional drilling subcontractor. With respect to CDI, NSJV and BCC each
   included in their initial proposals resumes for the same CDI
   superintendent and for the same CDI driller. According to the resume for
   the CDI superintendent, he has over 32 years of drilling experience and
   has worked for CDI for 29 years as a driller, drill foreman, and drill
   superintendent. This individual explained his drilling experience and
   stated that he helped to develop the drill systems equipment and
   methodology currently used by CDI for precision drilling. According to the
   resume for the CDI driller, he has over 20 years of drilling and related
   experience and has worked for CDI as a driller since 1985. This individual
   stated that he has been responsible for coordinating field drilling and
   related operations as a foreman and superintendent on various size
   projects for the last 10 years. Both CDI individuals listed relevant
   projects for which they have performed drilling services.

   With respect to self-performing the directional drilling requirements,
   NSJV stated in its initial proposal that the Nicholson part of the joint
   venture is the most experienced large anchor contractor in the United
   States and that the Soletanche part of the joint venture is the largest
   geotechnical contractor in the world, having broad expertise in
   geotechnical construction and exceptional capabilities in grouting and
   instrumentation. NSJV explained that while CDI's work on other projects
   has been successful from a technical standpoint, due to CDI's [deleted]
   and CDI's [deleted], NSJV intended to self-perform some of the directional
   drilling here in order to be able to successfully complete the project in
   the event that [deleted] developed regarding CDI's ability to complete the
   work. NSJV Initial Proposal at 51. NSJV further explained that in
   self-performing the directional drilling, it would get assistance from a
   company (which we will refer to as "Company X") which manufactures and
   promotes directional drilling equipment. In particular, NSJV proposed the
   "technical sales manager" from Company X[3] as the initial driller at the
   startup of the directional drilling work; NSJV stated that this individual
   would "train and consult" NSJV's operations staff so that they could
   complete the work. Id. at 5; Resume of Company X's Technical Sales
   Manager. According to this individual's resume, he has 5 years of
   experience with Company X, where he is responsible for selling directional
   drilling products in the United States, for demonstrating directional
   drilling techniques, for maintaining contact with customers, for
   supervising the technical department employees, and for directing and
   coordinating the training of the technical sales staff to service, sell,
   and market directional drilling equipment. According to NSJV's proposal,
   this individual works throughout North America "[deleted]." NSJV Initial
   Proposal at 5.

   During discussions, the agency identified the following as one of the
   weakest areas of NSJV's initial proposal: "[NSJV] infers [the] possibility
   of problems with CDI [deleted] (CDI is good technically--[deleted]
   indicates potential [deleted] problems)." Discussion Letter from Agency to
   NSJV, Nov. 22, 2005. Also, with respect to price, the agency advised NSJV
   that its total price was higher than the government estimate.

   In its initial proposal, BCC stated that in addition to its technical
   expertise in the installation of high capacity dam anchors, one of its
   other strong assets is its ability to self-perform a large majority of the
   associated work on the project. BCC explained that its general
   construction, demolition, and steel fabrication capabilities give it the
   ability to perform, for example, earthwork, concrete work, and platform
   fabrication. BCC stated that the pilot hole would be drilled "under the
   direction and support" of CDI, with CDI providing the "technical
   assistance" for the directional drilling of the pilot holes. BCC Initial
   Proposal, Planned Execution of Key Work Elements, at 1, and Past
   Performance, at 16. During discussions, the agency did not identify any
   weakness associated with BCC's decision to subcontract with CDI for
   directional drilling. With respect to price, the agency advised BCC that
   its total price was lower than the government estimate.

   Following discussions, NSJV and BCC submitted final revised proposals by
   the closing time on December 2, 2005. In its final revised proposal, NSJV
   no longer listed CDI as a subcontractor and no longer included resumes for
   the previously proposed CDI superintendent and CDI driller. NSJV explained
   that CDI did not have the [deleted] necessary to [deleted], thus
   transferring to NSJV all performance risk, which added to NSJV's [deleted]
   costs. In addition, NSJV explained that the price quoted by CDI to perform
   the directional drilling work was [deleted] that estimated by NSJV to
   self-perform this work. NSJV stated that given the experience it gained in
   conducting two full-scale directional drilling test programs (in March
   2005), it was confident that it could self-perform the directional
   drilling requirements in accordance with the terms of the RFP. Cover
   Letter to NSJV Final Revised Proposal; NSJV Final Revised Proposal at 1-2.
   Like it did in its initial proposal, NSJV continued to propose Company X
   and that firm's technical sales manager for assistance in self-performing
   the directional drilling requirements. In its final revised proposal, NSJV
   was able to reduce its price by approximately [deleted] percent in large
   part because it was no longer subcontracting with CDI for directional
   drilling.

   In its final revised proposal, BCC made no changes with respect to its
   decision to self-perform, and to subcontract with CDI for, the directional
   drilling requirements. BCC continued to state that the pilot hole would be
   drilled "under the direction and support" of CDI and that CDI would
   provide "directional drilling support." BCC Final Revised Proposal,
   Technical Execution of Key Work Elements, at 1, and Past Performance, at
   13. BCC also continued to include the resumes of the CDI superintendent
   and the CDI driller. In its final revised proposal, BCC raised its price
   by approximately [deleted] percent.

   Each of the four members of the agency's source selection evaluation board
   (SSEB) individually rated each offeror's technical proposal by assigning
   for each evaluation factor and subfactor an adjectival rating of
   excellent, very good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. These
   adjectival ratings were supported by narratives of the strengths (minor,
   major, or significant), weaknesses (minor, major, or significant),
   deficiencies, and any uncertainties in the proposal. After the individual
   evaluations were conducted, the members of the SSEB met and assigned a
   consensus rating to each offeror's proposal for each evaluation factor and
   subfactor. For each evaluation factor, the consensus ratings for the final
   revised proposals of NSJV and BCC were as follows:

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                          |  NSJV   |   BCC   |
|----------------------------------------------------------+---------+---------|
|       (1) Technical Execution of Key Work Elements       |[deleted]|[deleted]|
|----------------------------------------------------------+---------+---------|
|                   (2) Past Performance                   |[deleted]|[deleted]|
|----------------------------------------------------------+---------+---------|
| (3) Project Management, Quality Control, Key Personnel,  |[deleted]|[deleted]|
|                       and Schedule                       |         |         |
|----------------------------------------------------------+---------+---------|
|                    Overall Consensus                     |[deleted]|[deleted]|
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   SSEB Consensus Evaluation Report, Dec. 27, 2005, at 11.[4]

   NSJV's final revised total price ($[deleted]) was approximately [deleted]
   percent lower than BCC's final revised total price ($[deleted]).

   Under the past performance evaluation factor, the SSEB determined that
   NSJV's decision to self-perform the directional drilling requirements was
   a significant weakness because the firm did not provide any evidence of
   having any significant directional drilling experience. More specifically,
   the SSEB stated that NSJV had little to no significant directional
   drilling experience, noting that, in order to reduce (by [deleted]
   percent) the costs of the directional drilling, NSJV decided to no longer
   subcontract with CDI, a firm which had significant directional drilling
   experience. Id. at 6, 10. In contrast, the SSEB determined that BCC's
   decision to self-perform the directional drilling under the direction and
   support of CDI was a significant strength. Id. at 6.

   The contracting officer, who served as the source selection authority
   (SSA), determined that BCC's higher technically rated, slightly higher
   priced proposal represented the best value to the government. The SSA
   noted that one of the significant strengths in BCC's proposal was that
   this firm planned to perform the directional drilling under the direction
   and support of CDI, which has significant knowledge of, and experience
   with, directional drilling. The SSA commented that BCC's key personnel
   organizational chart listed a CDI superintendent and a CDI driller. The
   SSA stated that she viewed "[BCC's] use of CDI as being a significant
   value." Source Selection Decision, Jan. 9, 2006, at 2. In contrast, the
   SSA noted that without CDI, NSJV, as well as its driller, lacked any
   significant directional drilling experience. (The SSA recognized that NSJV
   could reduce its directional drilling costs by [deleted] percent by not
   using CDI.)[5] The SSA stated that the offerors' proposed approaches for
   performing the directional drilling requirements represented the key
   difference in the technical quality of the NSJV and BCC proposals. With
   respect to price, the SSA characterized the differential in the prices of
   NSJV and BCC as "negligible," pointing out that the additional cost
   associated with BCC's proposal was justified based on that firm's plan to
   perform directional drilling under the direction and support of CDI. Id.
   at 3. Accordingly, the SSA selected BCC's higher technically rated,
   slightly higher priced proposal for award.

   ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

   NSJV, which the agency determined had extensive experience in installing
   high capacity anchors at long lengths (significant strength), complains
   that in evaluating its record of past performance of "this type or similar
   types" of projects, the agency unreasonably considered its directional
   drilling experience as a separate element of its experience in installing
   high capacity anchors.[6] NSJV notes that under the past performance
   evaluation factor, while the RFP, as amended, stated that an offeror
   "should" describe its prior experience with installing high capacity
   anchors, with designing anchor heads for such anchors, and with installing
   full length corrosion protection, the RFP did not separately mention any
   aspect of directional drilling. Accordingly, NSJV maintains that the
   agency did not have a reasonable basis for evaluating whether, or to what
   degree, it had directional drilling experience.

   In reviewing a protest against an agency's proposal evaluation, we will
   consider whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the
   terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. Kira,
   Inc.; All Star Maint., Inc., B-291507, B-291507.2, Jan. 7, 2003, 2003 CPD
   para. 22 at 5. Mere disagreement with an agency's evaluation is not
   sufficient to render the evaluation unreasonable. Bevilacqua Research
   Corp., B-293051, Jan. 12, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 15 at 8 n.8.

   Solicitations must identify all significant evaluation factors and any
   significant subfactors that will be considered in awarding the contract,
   and the evaluation of proposals must be based on the factors set forth in
   the solicitation. Federal Acquisition Regulation sections 15.304(d),
   15.305(a). While agencies are required to identify the major evaluation
   factors, they are not required to identify all areas of each factor which
   might be taken into account, provided that the unidentified areas are
   reasonably related to, or encompassed by, the stated criteria.
   Mid-Atlantic Design & Graphics, B-276576, July 1, 1997, 98-1 CPD para. 132
   at 3-4; Cobra Techs., Inc., B-272041, B-272041.2, Aug. 20, 1996, 96-2 CPD
   para. 73 at 3; MetaMetrics, Inc., B-248603.2, Oct. 30, 1992, 92-2 CPD
   para. 306 at 5. Here, even though directional drilling was not expressly
   identified in the past performance evaluation factor, we conclude that the
   agency reasonably evaluated an offeror's record of performing directional
   drilling as this area was reasonably encompassed within the evaluation
   factor.

   In this regard, the broad scope of work here involves the installation of
   high capacity rock anchors. In order to ensure that these anchors are
   installed with precise alignments, which is critical to the successful
   completion of the project, the anchor holes will be drilled using
   directional drilling. In this procurement, under the most important
   evaluation factor--planned technical execution of key work elements--and
   under the most important subfactor--drilling techniques--an offeror was
   required to describe the directional drilling method to be used to meet
   specified drilling tolerances. The amended RFP also stated that the firm
   performing the directional drilling should have at least 3 years of
   experience engaged in directional drilling. With respect to the individual
   doing the drilling, the amended RFP required this person to have drilled
   holes using directional drilling techniques at specified drilling
   tolerances on at least two projects. In light of the project requirements
   and the terms of the RFP, we conclude that while directional drilling was
   not expressly included in the past performance evaluation factor, this
   area was reasonably encompassed within the evaluation factor and, as a
   result, the agency reasonably assessed an offeror's record of performing
   directional drilling.

   NSJV next complains that the agency ignored its experience with
   directional drilling, pointing to a [deleted]-day test program it
   conducted in March 2005 at a limestone quarry in [deleted] using the
   directional drilling technology it proposed to use at Bluestone Dam.

   NSJV's position is not supported by the record. Despite the fact that NSJV
   performed the referenced test program in March 2005, which does not
   constitute 3 years of directional drilling experience, as indicated by the
   RFP, the record nevertheless shows that under the most important
   evaluation factor--planned technical execution of key work elements--the
   agency noted as a major strength that NSJV had performed two test programs
   to attain knowledge of directional drilling.[7] However, in listing these
   test programs as a major strength of NSJV's proposal, the agency
   specifically remarked that the "strength and material" tested was
   different from that which would be encountered at Bluestone Dam. As
   relevant here, with respect to the test program at the [deleted] limestone
   quarry, the agency indicated that the directional drilling was done in
   significantly softer material, which does not compare well with the
   significantly harder material at Bluestone Dam. In fact, NSJV itself
   recognizes that in finding a test site, due to scheduling constraints, it
   was "precluded [from] identif[ying] . . . a suitable hard rock test site."
   NSJV Final Revised Proposal at 5. Thus, even considering the recentness of
   NSJV's test program experience, as well as the fact that the test program
   in [deleted] did not involve a site comparable to that at Bluestone Dam,
   the record shows that the agency still gave NSJV credit, i.e., a
   significant strength, for its test program experience.

   NSJV also complains that the agency gave it no credit for proposing the
   technical sales manager from Company X as the initial driller who would
   train and consult NSJV's operations staff so that they could complete the
   work.

   As described above, the record shows, and NSJV does not meaningfully
   dispute or otherwise demonstrate, that the technical sales manager from
   Company X is a salesperson for the directional drilling equipment sold by
   his employer and his experience in performing directional drilling is
   limited to doing equipment demonstrations. We think the statement in
   NSJV's proposal that this individual "[deleted]" reasonably supports the
   agency's position that this individual is an equipment salesperson and, as
   such, lacks significant directional drilling experience on specifically
   defined projects. NSJV Initial Proposal at 5; NSJV Final Revised Proposal
   at 4. We have no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency's
   evaluation in this regard.

   In addition, NSJV complains that its proposal to self-perform the
   directional drilling requirements was unreasonably downgraded (significant
   weakness) vis-`a-vis BCC's proposal to self-perform these requirements
   (significant strength) since BCC also lacks significant directional
   drilling experience of its own.

   The record shows that the agency did not object to NSJV's decision to
   self-perform the directional drilling requirements per se; rather, as
   explained above, the agency's objection was that in proposing to
   self-perform these requirements, NSJV had little, if any, significant
   directional drilling experience of its own and the experience of its
   proposed driller was limited to equipment demonstrations. Throughout its
   protest submissions, NSJV fails to acknowledge that, when it submitted its
   final revised proposal, it had materially changed its technical approach
   for the performance of the directional drilling--from self-performing
   these requirements with assistance and support from CDI, a knowledgeable
   and experienced directional drilling contractor, to self-performing this
   work with an individual whose experience was limited to demonstrating the
   capabilities of directional drilling equipment. It was this material
   change that reflected not only NSJV's business judgment in order to save
   [deleted] percent of the costs associated with directional drilling, but
   also resulted in NSJV having a team without any significant directional
   drilling experience, which was the basis for the agency's decision to
   downgrade NSJV's final revised proposal.

   In contrast, BCC directly addressed its own lack of significant
   directional drilling experience through its arrangement with CDI. The
   agency determined that BCC's proposal to perform the directional drilling
   requirements with CDI was a significant value and that BCC's arrangement
   with CDI reflected the primary difference in the technical quality of the
   NSJV and BCC proposals for the performance of these requirements. The
   agency was familiar with CDI's expertise, even listing CDI in the RFP as
   an industry contact for directional drilling. The CDI individuals whose
   resumes were included in BCC's final revised proposal, as detailed above,
   have long-term directional drilling experience working in various drilling
   positions at CDI on major projects. On this record, we conclude that NSJV
   has provided no meaningful basis for our Office to object to the agency's
   evaluation of the merits of the two proposals.[8]

   In sum, and for the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the agency
   reasonably evaluated NSJV's proposal. In our view, NSJV's arguments
   reflect no more than disagreement with the agency's evaluation; however,
   such disagreement does not render the evaluation unreasonable.[9]

   Finally, NSJV complains that as the offeror submitting the lowest priced
   proposal, it should have received the award. However, in a negotiated
   procurement, where the solicitation does not provide for award on the
   basis of the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal, an agency has
   the discretion to make an award to an offeror with a higher technical
   rating and a higher price where it reasonably determines that the price
   premium is justified and the result is consistent with the evaluation
   criteria. ACC Constr. Co., Inc., B-288934, Nov. 21, 2001, 2001 CPD para.
   190 at 5-6. Here, the RFP stated that the combined technical evaluation
   factors were significantly more important than price and the RFP
   specifically reserved the right for the agency to award to other than the
   lowest priced offeror. BCC's proposal received a higher technical rating
   than NSJV's proposal and its price was only [deleted] percent higher than
   NSJV's price, a difference which the agency reasonably characterized as
   "negligible." Under these circumstances, and consistent with the terms of
   the RFP, we conclude that the agency reasonably determined to pay a de
   minimis price premium to BCC in order to obtain a contractor which has
   teamed with an entity whose long-term experience and expertise in
   directional drilling will be critical to the successful completion of the
   project.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] This protest follows an earlier protest filed by NSJV, in response to
   which the agency took corrective action (i.e., the agency relaxed the
   evaluation criteria, conducted discussions, requested and evaluated final
   revised proposals, and made a new source selection decision).

   [2] The evaluation of price proposals is not at issue in this protest.

   [3] Two of NSJV's team members--Company X (and its technical sales
   manager) and another company (which, according to NSJV's proposal, builds
   and sells specific types of boring machines)--were listed in the RFP as
   industry contacts for directional drilling.

   [4] To the extent that NSJV complains that some of the consensus ratings
   did not mirror, or reflect, the individual evaluator ratings, we note that
   consensus ratings need not be those initially assigned by the individual
   evaluators; rather, the consensus ratings may properly be determined after
   discussions among the evaluators, which is what occurred here as
   documented in the SSEB consensus evaluation report. Joint Mgmt. & Tech.
   Servs., B-294229, B-294229.2, Sept. 22, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 208 at 4;
   I.S. Grupe, Inc., B-278839, Mar. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 86 at 5-6. In
   this case, based upon our review of the record, the consensus ratings
   reasonably reflect the relative merits of the proposals, which is the
   overriding concern. Brisk Waterproofing Co., Inc., B-276247, May 27, 1997,
   97-1 CPD para. 195 at 2 n.1.

   [5] The SSA also recognized that another area where NSJV could save a
   substantial amount of money involved its proposed use of a [deleted] gyro
   to check hole alignment. However, the RFP required the use of a "rate
   gyrocompass, or equal equipment." RFP sect. 02490, at 18. Despite being
   given an opportunity during discussions to demonstrate that its proposed
   gyro was equal to the required gyro, NSJV failed to do so, instead stating
   in its final revised proposal that its proposed gyro would save at least
   $[deleted] and that the rate gyro could not be justified. Because NSJV
   failed to demonstrate the required equality of its proposed gyro, the SSEB
   assigned a significant weakness to NSJV's proposal for the drilling
   techniques subfactor under the first evaluation factor. The SSA agreed
   with the SSEB's assessment. In its post-award written debriefing,
   furnished to the protester on February 1, 2006, the agency quoted from the
   SSEB consensus evaluation report with respect to this matter. In its
   initial protest filed on February 3, despite acknowledging receipt of the
   written debriefing, NSJV did not raise any issue with respect to the
   agency's evaluation of its proposed gyro. For the first time in its
   supplemental protest, filed on February 22, NSJV raised this matter and
   the agency's assignment of a significant weakness. However, we will not
   consider this issue because it was not timely raised within 10 days of
   NSJV's debriefing when the firm knew, or should have known, of its basis
   for protest. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2005);
   Verestar Gov't Servs. Group, B-291854, B-291854.2, Apr. 3, 2003, 2003 CPD
   para. 68 at 8 n.4.

   [6] Although experience and past performance are separate concepts, the
   parties used these terms interchangeably throughout the course of the
   protest.

   [7] NSJV also conducted a [deleted]-day test program in March 2005 at a
   dam in [deleted] using core drilling, which is a different drilling
   technique than the directional drilling required at Bluestone Dam.

   [8] Even if, as NSJV speculates, CDI's role will be limited to providing
   direction and support to BCC, as opposed to doing the actual drilling, the
   fact that BCC included as a key member of its team a knowledgeable and
   experienced industry expert in directional drilling would appear to
   constitute a reasonable basis to distinguish between the proposals of NSJV
   and BCC.

   [9] NSJV has raised a number of collateral issues that we have considered
   and find to be without merit; these collateral issues do not warrant
   detailed analysis or discussion. For example, NSJV complains that the
   agency unreasonably assigned lower ratings to its final revised proposal
   than it assigned to its initial proposal (before corrective action was
   taken). The fact that NSJV's initial proposal received higher ratings than
   its final revised proposal does not establish, in and of itself, that the
   agency's evaluation of its final revised proposal was unreasonable. D.F.
   Zee's Fire Fighter Catering, B-280767.4, Sept. 10, 1999, 99-2 CPD para. 62
   at 4. Rather, we look to the complete record to determine the
   reasonableness of the agency's evaluation. Id. As discussed above, the
   agency's evaluation of NSJV's final revised proposal was reasonable in
   light of the RFP requirements and as documented in the SSEB consensus
   evaluation report and the source selection decision.

   As another example, NSJV complains that the agency unreasonably assigned
   an "uncertainty" to its final revised proposal concerning its proposed
   on-site safety manager. The record shows that while NSJV stated in the
   cover letter to its final revised proposal that there would be a
   full-time, qualified site safety manager, the text of its final revised
   proposal, which remained unchanged from its initial proposal, stated that
   "Dependent on the [deleted] [,] [NSJV] may elect to place a full[-]time
   safety professional on-site [deleted]." NSJV Final Revised Proposal at 73.
   The language in the text of NSJV's proposal appears to qualify or
   contradict the information in the firm's cover letter and, when both
   provisions are read together, it is not clear whether NSJV has committed
   to assigning a full-time, on-site safety manager. On this record, we
   conclude that the agency reasonably assigned an "uncertainty" to NSJV's
   proposal with respect to the firm's on-site safety manager.