Hellenic Technodomiki S.A.

B-265930 Jan 03, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Slightly higher-priced offeror is reasonable in a best value procurement where quality. Is more important than price and the awardee's proposal posed a low performance risk with regard to timely performance. The quality evaluation factors were slightly more important than price. Were [1] A. The RFP instructed offerors to demonstrate that they manage their projects so they are completed on time and requested a full explanation of reasons for the late completion of any project. Who were performing contracts on-site and were believed to have the capability to successfully perform this work. Ltd. superior under past performance because it had completed two other projects for the agency at Souda Bay in a timely fashion and its work on these projects was rated as "outstanding.". View Decision Matter of: Hellenic Technodomiki S.A. File: B-265930 Date: January 3, 1996 Award to a higher-rated, slightly higher-priced offeror is reasonable in a best value procurement where quality, including timely performance, is more important than price and the awardee's proposal posed a low performance risk with regard to timely performance, whereas the protester's proposal posed a moderate to high performance risk. Attorneys DECISION Hellenic Technodomiki S.A. protests an award to Contracting, Ltd. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N33191-95-R-4361, issued by the Department of the Navy, Engineering Field Activity Mediterranean, for the construction of shower and locker rooms, a weight room, and a racquetball court, and the renovation of a gymnasium at the U.S. Naval Support Activity, Souda Bay, Crete, Greece. We deny the protest. The Navy issued the RFP on May 9, 1995, as a reprocurement of a previously defaulted contract. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract on a best value basis. The quality evaluation factors were slightly more important than price. The two quality evaluation factors, and their respective subfactors, were [1] A. Technical Excellence (1) Design/Construction Plan (2) Timely Completion B. Management Capabilities (1) Prime Contractor Project Management Team (2) Subcontracting Plan (3) Corporate Past Performance & Financial Resources (4) Safety Plan for Prime and Subcontracted Work. The RFP provided a detailed description of the criteria that would be evaluated under each evaluation factor and subfactor. Under the corporate past performance subfactor, the RFP instructed offerors to demonstrate that they manage their projects so they are completed on time and requested a full explanation of reasons for the late completion of any project. The Navy sent the RFP only to Hellenic and Contracting, Ltd., who were performing contracts on-site and were believed to have the capability to successfully perform this work. Both firms submitted proposals. The Navy conducted discussions with both firms, including requests for explanations on how the offerors planned "to deal with 'long-lead-time' materials that may potentially delay" project completion, with an example of such material. The Navy rated both proposals "acceptable" on all but the following criteria: [2] Offeror Timely Completion Past Performance Contracting, Ltd. Acceptable Superior Hellenic Marginal Marginal The Navy rated Contracting, Ltd. superior under past performance because it had completed two other projects for the agency at Souda Bay in a timely fashion and its work on these projects was rated as "outstanding." Its plan to timely complete the work was "acceptable," and the Navy rated Contracting, Ltd.'s proposal "acceptable" overall. The Navy rated Hellenic "marginal" for timely completion because its proposal did not explain how it would complete the project in a timely manner and did not demonstrate that its proposed construction plan was well thought out and realistic so as to ensure completion of the project within the time specified. The Navy also rated Hellenic's proposal "marginal" on past performance because it was behind schedule on all nine projects which it was currently performing for the agency at Souda Bay. The Navy's overall rating for Hellenic's proposal was "lower-level acceptable." The BAFO prices for Hellenic and Contracting, Ltd. were 120,800,000 Greek drachmas (Dra.) and 124,169,178 Dra., respectively. [3] The Navy determined that Hellenic's "lower-level acceptable" BAFO posed a moderate to high risk of exceeding the proposed construction time, whereas Contracting, Ltd.'s acceptable BAFO posed a low risk. The agency determined that the lower risk associated with Contracting, Ltd.'s BAFO outweighed the small price difference between the two BAFOs and therefore to represent the best value. Award was therefore made to Contracting, Ltd. and this protest followed. Hellenic alleges that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable and does not support the award to the higher-priced offeror.