TITLE: B-310340.3; B-310340.4, McGoldrick Construction Services Corporation, May 16, 2008
BNUMBER: B-310340.3; B-310340.4
DATE: May 16, 2008
**********************************************************************************
B-310340.3; B-310340.4, McGoldrick Construction Services Corporation, May 16, 2008

   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: McGoldrick Construction Services Corporation

   File: B-310340.3; B-310340.4

   Date: May 16, 2008

   Douglas L. Patin, Esq., and Jeremy Becker-Welts, Esq., Bradley Arant, for
   the protester.

   Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Stacey North Willis, Esq., and Charlma
   Quarles, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.

   Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest of agency's evaluation of proposals and award decision is denied
   where the record shows they were reasonable and consistent with the terms
   of the solicitation and applicable procurement rules.

   DECISION

   McGoldrick Construction Services Corporation protests the award of a
   contract to Strategic Perspectives Development, LLC (SPD) under request
   for proposals (RFP) No. VA-101-07-RP-0030, issued by the Department of
   Veterans Affairs (VA) for construction services at the VA Medical Center
   in San Antonio, Texas. McGoldrick contends that the evaluation of SPD's
   proposal and the agency's selection of that firm for award were
   unreasonable and inconsistent with the solicitation's terms.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business
   set-aside, sought proposals for the award of a fixed-price contract for
   construction services, including architectural, mechanical, electrical,
   utility, fire alarm, and fire protection systems work, and asbestos and
   lead abatement services. RFP at 1. Offerors were advised that the
   evaluation and award selection would be "made on the basis of both cost
   and technical considerations most advantageous to the Government," that
   the technical evaluation factors combined (construction management, past
   performance, and schedule, listed in descending order of importance) were
   "approximately equal in importance to cost or price," and that "if the
   technical proposals are essentially equal, the award will be made on the
   basis of lowest cost." Id. at 2-3. Cost/price was to be evaluated "on the
   basis of its realism and acceptability to the Government." Id.

   For the construction management evaluation factor, offerors were to
   describe project personnel experience and technical/management approach
   (including a list of all proposed major subcontractors). Id. at 5-6. The
   past performance evaluation factor included a subfactor for corporate
   project experience (regarding recent projects of similar size and scope)
   and a less important subfactor for client satisfaction; for the evaluation
   of corporate project experience, offerors were to describe their
   "experience as a prime contractor, subcontractor or other," with prime
   contractor experience being most important. Id. at 3, 6-7. For the final
   technical evaluation factor, schedule, the offeror's proposed schedule was
   to be evaluated for realism and reasonableness. Id. at 3.

   Following a successful size status protest, the agency terminated an
   initial award it had made under the RFP and reevaluated the three
   remaining technically acceptable proposals to make a new source selection.
   SPD submitted the lowest-priced proposal (at $2,958,092); the firm's
   technical proposal received an evaluation score of 58.3 points (out of a
   possible 100 points). McGoldrick submitted the highest-priced proposal (at
   $3,917,000); its technical proposal received a score of 78 points. A third
   offeror's proposal was rated higher for technical merit than SPD's
   proposal, but lower than McGoldrick's; that firm proposed a price higher
   than SPD's and lower than McGoldrick's.[1] Having determined that the
   payment of the price premiums involved in an award to either of the two
   higher-rated proposals was not warranted in light of the acceptable level
   of technical competence offered by SPD's substantially lower-priced
   proposal, the agency concluded that SPD's proposal presented the best
   value to the agency and made an award to the firm. This protest followed.

   The protester challenges the evaluation of the awardee's proposal under
   the corporate project experience subfactor of the past performance factor,
   arguing that, as a new business, SPD could not have shown corporate
   experience performing similar work. [2] The protester also challenges the
   propriety of the agency's determination that the price premium associated
   with McGoldrick's higher-priced, higher-rated proposal was not warranted
   in light of the technical capability demonstrated by Strategic's
   substantially lower-priced proposal.

   In response to the protester's challenge to the evaluation of SPD's past
   performance, the agency reports that SPD's proposal was credited under the
   past performance factor's subfactor for corporate project experience for
   the relevant experience of its major subcontractor that recently
   successfully performed substantially similar work at another VA medical
   facility. Additionally, in response to McGoldrick's challenge to the award
   having been made to a firm that submitted a lower-rated, lower-priced
   proposal, the agency reports that the three technically acceptable
   proposals had varying strengths, with limited, if any, weaknesses, and
   demonstrated the capability to successfully perform the work required
   here. The agency further reports that in finding no significant advantages
   in McGoldrick's higher-rated proposal that would warrant payment of the
   protester's substantially higher price, the agency made award to SPD as
   the overall best value offeror.

   In reviewing a protest against an agency's evaluation of proposals and
   award, including a tradeoff determination, we examine the record to
   determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with
   the solicitation's evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and
   regulations. Ostrom Painting & Sandblasting, Inc., B-285244, July 18,
   2000, 2000 CPD para. 132 at 4. Generally, in a negotiated procurement, an
   agency may properly select a lower-rated, lower-priced proposal where it
   reasonably concludes that the price premium involved in selecting a
   higher-rated proposal is not justified in light of the acceptable level of
   technical competence available at a lower price. Bella Vista Landscaping,
   Inc., B-291310, Dec. 16, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 217 at 4. A protester's mere
   disagreement with the agency's determinations does not establish that the
   evaluation or source selection was unreasonable. Weber Cafeteria Servs.,
   Inc., B-290085.2, June 17, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 99 at 4. Our review of the
   record here confirms the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of the
   proposals and its tradeoff determination.

   While McGoldrick contends that the VA unreasonably considered SPD's
   subcontractor's experience, it is well-established that in evaluating the
   past performance of a new business, an agency may consider the experience
   of the firm's proposed subcontractors, unless it is prohibited from doing
   so by the terms of the solicitation, since such experience could be
   reasonably predictive of the offeror's performance under the contract. See
   Cleveland Telecomms. Corp., B-257294, Sept. 19, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 105;
   Commercial Bldg. Serv., Inc., B-237865.2, B-237865.3, May 16, 1990, 90-1
   CPD para. 473 at 4. To the extent the protester contends that the agency
   failed to confirm the subcontractor's role in performance of the work and
   whether that firm's experience is relevant to the RFP's requirements, the
   agency reports, and our review of the record confirms, that the awardee's
   major subcontractor is an experienced construction firm with relevant and
   recent successful performance of substantially similar renovation work at
   another VA medical facility and will have substantial responsibility for
   the performance of the work here. Under these circumstances, the agency
   reasonably considered the subcontractor's experience in evaluating the
   awardee's past performance.[3]

   To the extent McGoldrick argues that the agency's award to SPD on the
   basis of its lower-rated, lower-priced proposal violates the RFP's terms,
   which McGoldrick interprets as permitting award on that basis only if the
   proposals were essentially equal in technical merit, the protester's
   position is based on an unreasonable interpretation of the RFP, since, as
   stated above, the RFP clearly permitted a tradeoff between equally
   weighted technical and price factors. See Angel Menendez Envtl. Servs.,
   Inc., supra, at 3-4. The agency reports, and our review of the record
   confirms, that the contracting officer, as the source selection authority,
   considered the evaluation narratives and worksheets and found no
   significant advantages or disadvantages between the proposals to justify
   the payment of the price premium associated with McGoldrick's proposal
   ($1 million), given the level of technical competence available at SPD's
   substantially lower price. McGoldrick simply has not provided any
   persuasive basis to question the reasonableness of the agency's award to
   SPD on the basis of its lower-rated, substantially lower-priced proposal.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] A separate protest of the award filed by the third firm was resolved
   by a separate decision. See Angel Menendez Envtl. Servs., Inc.,
   B-310340.2, Apr. 11, 2008, 2008 CPD para. 73.

   [2] In its supplemental protest, McGoldrick raised additional challenges
   that lack sufficient support to constitute valid bases of protest, see
   Pacific Photocopy and Research Servs., B-278698, B-278698.3, Mar. 4, 1998,
   98-1 CPD para. 69 at 4, and fail to show a reasonable possibility of
   competitive prejudice to the firm, see McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8,
   1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at 3; Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d
   1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996), and thus are not appropriate for further
   review. For instance, while the protester generally questioned certain
   handwritten adjustments made to the point scores, the agency reported that
   they were merely mathematical adjustments to correct the weight assigned
   to several evaluation subfactors and did not change the substance of the
   underlying evaluation. McGoldrick provides no persuasive rebuttal to the
   agency's explanation of this essentially administrative task and fails to
   show that it has been prejudiced in any way by the adjustment. Similarly,
   McGoldrick argued that assigning the maximum 100 points to the
   lowest-priced proposal placed too much emphasis on the price factor for
   award (since only 78, not 100, points were given to the highest-rated
   (McGoldrick's) technical proposal). The protester has failed to show any
   resulting prejudice, however, since even if its technical proposal had
   received 100 points, that would require a proportionate rise in point
   scores for the other highly-rated but lower-priced proposals, including
   SPD's. It is clear that the differential among the three proposals'
   overall (technical and price) point scores would remain virtually
   unchanged, providing no reasonable basis to question the award selection.

   [3] To the extent McGoldrick objects to the agency's assertion that "SPD
   did not receive an advantage over other offerors even though it had no
   corporate experience of its own," Comments, Mar. 24, 2008, at 5, the
   record shows that the agency in fact did give higher scores where the
   corporate experience pertained to the offeror itself (as in McGoldrick's
   case), rather than its proposed subcontractors (as in SPD's case).
   Moreover, in light of the highly favorable past performance information
   considered for both offerors, we see no support in the record for
   McGoldrick's speculation that its past performance was, or should have
   been, considered, to be of higher quality than SPD's; in this regard,
   McGoldrick itself has neither identified any aspect of its own past
   performance for which it believes it did not receive appropriate
   evaluation credit, nor provided any basis to question the favorable past
   performance information available for SPD's major subcontractor (as well
   as SPD's key personnel's relevant past experience) for which SPD earned a
   favorable past performance score.