Holmes & Narver, Inc.

B-266246 Jan 18, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The agency was not required to raise during discussions that an offeror's price exceeded the solicitation's stated cost objective. Which was not an absolute limit. Where the offeror's price was evaluated as realistic. The agency was not required to advise an offeror during discussions of those enhancements evaluated as only marginally beneficial so that the offeror could delete those enhancements and lower its price. Were neither deficiencies. REDACTED DECISION A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The technical/management area was most important. Although "cost was still significant and would be a substantial factor in determining the proposal most advantageous to the government.". View Decision Matter of: Holmes & Narver, Inc. File: B-266246 Date: January 18, 1996 * REDACTED DECISION Under a negotiated procurement for the design and construction of military family housing, the agency was not required to raise during discussions that an offeror's price exceeded the solicitation's stated cost objective, which was not an absolute limit, where the offeror's price was evaluated as realistic, reasonable, complete, and low risk. Under a solicitation for the design and construction of military family housing, which encouraged offerors to propose enhancements to the specifications as part of their offer to obtain additional technical credit, the agency was not required to advise an offeror during discussions of those enhancements evaluated as only marginally beneficial so that the offeror could delete those enhancements and lower its price, since those enhancements, which contributed to the offeror's high technical rating, were neither deficiencies, weaknesses, nor excesses. Attorneys REDACTED DECISION A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. DECISION Holmes and Narver, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Harper/Nielsen-Dillingham under request for proposals (RFP) No. F04684-94-R-0027, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the second phase of a military family housing construction project at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. We deny the protest. The RFP sought offers to raze 128 units of existing military family housing, prepare the site for new construction, and design and build 128 units of replacement single-family homes as well as common areas for family and community recreation. As issued, the RFP's schedule contained a basic contract line item number (CLIN) 0001 for a lump-sum price to design and construct the housing development, a deductive line item, CLIN 0002, for the amount to be paid to the Air Force by the contractor to dispose of debris at the base's landfill, and a number of option CLINs for various upgrades of materials and features. The RFP informed offerors that proposals would be evaluated in two areas: technical/management and price. The technical/management area was most important, although "cost was still significant and would be a substantial factor in determining the proposal most advantageous to the government." The evaluation factors in the technical/management area were (1) design experience, (2) construction experience, (3) construction methodology/materials, (4) management approach, and (5) design/construction schedule. The first three evaluation factors were equally weighted and of greatest importance, followed by management approach and then design/construction schedule. Technical/management proposals were to be evaluated under a color/adjectival rating scheme, [1] as well as for proposal risk to assess the risk associated with an offeror's proposed approach and for performance risk to assess the probability of successful performance based on the offeror's past and present performance. [2] Under the design experience and construction experience factors, corporate experience and personnel experience, which had the same weight, were to be separately assessed. Under the construction methodology/materials factor, offerors were encouraged to propose enhancements to the materials and methods of construction specified by the RFP, which would be evaluated to "determine the offeror's understanding of the requirement and compared to the specifications and drawings to determine the value added"; the CLIN 0001 price was to include the proposed enhancements, which could be incorporated into the contract by the government. The management approach factor contained four equally weighted subfactors: team organization, internal controls, quality control approach, and safety approach. Price proposals were to be evaluated for realism, reasonableness, completeness, and risk.