Contratos y Mantenimientos, S.A.

B-266353 Feb 09, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Downgrading of proposal for lack of similar experience was reasonable where. Experience was not with marine floating equipment. Allegation that the letter rating of the awardee's proposal was too high and that of the protester's was too low is not a basis for sustaining protest where contracting officer did not rely on letter ratings but. The protester primarily argues that the evaluation of the proposals was improper. Offerors were to list at least four references and an explanation of the type of work performed. Five proposals were received. Although COMASA's price was low. Its proposal was weak under each of the technical subfactors. That it was unlikely that COMASA could perform the contract at its offered price. View Decision Matter of: Contratos y Mantenimientos, S.A. File: B-266353 Date: February 9, 1996 Downgrading of proposal for lack of similar experience was reasonable where, although proposal showed experience painting in confined spaces, experience was not with marine floating equipment, and record shows that safety procedures previously used by protester actually would create dangerous working conditions in a marine environment. Allegation that the letter rating of the awardee's proposal was too high and that of the protester's was too low is not a basis for sustaining protest where contracting officer did not rely on letter ratings but, rather, based award decision on his own assessment of the relative merits of the proposals. Attorneys DECISION Contratos y Mantenimientos, S.A. (COMASA) protests the award of a contract to Formal Management Systems (FMS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. CNP-906-95-AG-28, issued by the Panama Canal Commission for the removal of all debris, scale, blast, and paint in selected areas of a barge. The protester primarily argues that the evaluation of the proposals was improper. We deny the protest. [1] The evaluation contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract on a best value basis, with consideration of two factors, technical and price. The technical factor consisted of four subfactors: quality of work and quality of control; experience; equipment and safety procedures; and past performance. With regard to past performance, offerors were to list at least four references and an explanation of the type of work performed. Five proposals were received. COMASA's proposal received an initial evaluation score of 275 (of the 1,000 available) points, while FMS's received a perfect score of 1,000 points. COMASA's best and final offer (BAFO), priced at $139,927, received 475 points, and FMS's, priced at $236,000, received 1,000 points. The contracting officer then assigned the proposals combined technical/price letter ratings, C+ for COMASA and B+ for FMS. In reviewing the BAFOs, the contracting officer found that, although COMASA's price was low, its proposal was weak under each of the technical subfactors, and that it was unlikely that COMASA could perform the contract at its offered price. After finding FMS's BAFO technically superior to COMASA's and that its price was realistic, the contracting officer determined that FMS's BAFO was most advantageous to the government and awarded the contract to FMS. EXPERIENCE COMASA argues that its technical proposal improperly was downgraded for a lack of sufficient experience in confined space industrial coating application works; COMASA claims its proposal demonstrated that the firm had a great deal of such experience. Technical evaluations must be reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. Comarco, Inc., B-249697.2, Jan. 26, 1993, 93-1 CPD Para. 65. Here, we find that the evaluation of COMASA's technical proposal was proper. While COMASA's proposal showed experience performing confined space work, with the exception of one prior contract with the Commission (contract No. CC-3-088) the experience of the firm and its proposed personnel consisted of painting in confined spaces on tanks rather than on marine floating equipment, as required under the RFP here. The agency reports that there are substantial differences between the two types of work, including the fact that COMASA's proposed safety plans and procedures, which are used for confined space work on tanks, actually create dangerous working conditions for workers on marine floating equipment, as they do not allow for proper oversight procedures of the ventilation system inside the confined space and do not provide for any persons to be stationed inside the confined space to monitor personnel working there, as required by the solicitation. Further, while COMASA's contract No. CC-3-088 did involve similar work, the Commission reports that it found COMASA's work to be unsatisfactory due to poor surface preparation, contamination, and insufficient use of extraction blowers, which caused the internal coating to fall off in large sheets.