Volmar Construction, Inc.

Volmar Construction, Inc. BNUMBER: B-270364; B-270364.2 DATE: March 4, 1996 TITLE: Volmar Construction, Inc. ********************************************************************** Matter of:Volmar Construction, Inc. File: B-270364; B-270364.2 Date: March 4, 1996 V. James Adduci II, Esq., and Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, for the protester. J. Kevin Bridston, Esq., Holland & Hart, for MCC Construction Corp., an intervenor. Nicholas P. Retson, Esq., and Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency conducted meaningful discussions where questions posed were sufficient to direct the protester to the agency's primary areas of concern about its proposal; all-encompassing discussions are not required. 2. Under a solicitation in which technical factors were more important than price, the selection of the awardee on the basis of its overall technical superiority, notwithstanding its higher price, is unobjectionable where the agency reasonably determined that the awardee's higher-priced proposal, which evidenced in particular superior relevant contract experience and past performance, was worth the additional cost, and the cost/technical tradeoff was consistent with the evaluation scheme. DECISION Volmar Construction, Inc. protests the award of a contract to MCC Construction Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAKF29-95-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Army for small to medium repair and minor construction projects at Fort Dix, New Jersey and at various other installations throughout New Jersey and New York. The protester contends that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions and that the award determination reflects an improper cost/technical tradeoff. The protests are denied. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity job order contract (JOC) for a base year with 2 option years, dividing the work to be completed into six geographic zones. Offerors were requested to submit a technical proposal addressing the technical/management evaluation areas and a pricing proposal. The RFP advised that award would be made on the basis of the best overall value in terms of management, technical, quality control, and price. Technical excellence was slightly more important than price, and consisted of a management factor, including eight subfactors; a technical factor, including five subfactors; and, a quality control factor, including five subfactors. Within the technical excellence area, management was slightly more important than technical or quality control, which were of equal importance. Ten firms, including Volmar and MCC, submitted initial proposals by the closing date. After the initial evaluation, the source selection evaluation board (SSEB) concluded that all 10 firms were within the competitive range. In its evaluation, the SSEB provided numerical scores and corresponding adjectival ratings to express the merit of the technical proposals, as follows: Percentage Point Score Adjectival Rating 90 to 100 Excellent 70 to 89 Satisfactory 50 to 69 Marginal The ratings were supported by detailed narrative technical findings by the SSEB of the strengths and weaknesses of each offeror's proposal in each evaluation area. Following its initial proposal evaluation, the SSEB assigned Volmar's technical proposal the following percentage scores under the management factor: 93 for subcontractor coordination; 95 for general management; 93 for purchasing system; 91 for management staff list; 91 for management plan; 30 for payroll/labor plan; 94 for response time; and 50 for subcontracting plan. The summary narrative for this factor listed no strengths but six weaknesses for Volmar's payroll/labor plan. The evaluation of its subcontracting plan indicated that Volmar was judged deficient on one factor. Under the technical factor, the SSEB assigned Volmar's proposal a percentage score of 93 for its ability to deal with a number of small construction projects simultaneously; 78 for experience; 94 for technical staff; 97 for project managers; and, 96 for its subcontractors. No specific strengths or weaknesses were listed in the narrative concerning Volmar's experience/past performance. Finally, under quality control, the SSEB assigned Volmar's initial proposal 87 percent for its inspection techniques; 87 percent for its corrective action program; 72 percent for its customer complaint program; 97 percent for its accident prevention program; and, 87 percent for documentation and reports. The summary narrative listed one weakness in Volmar's inspection techniques.