Morrison Knudsen Corporation

B-270703 Apr 11, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest against award to offeror whose proposal received a lower technical score from the source selection evaluation board than protester's and only offered a slightly lower evaluated cost is sustained where a primary basis for the source selection authority's decision to disregard the evaluation scores was not supported by the record. MK argues that the source selection decision was based on a misreading of the proposals. Among the proposals received were MK's and B&R's. Both were included in the competitive range. "in- country equipment" in the successor states to the former Soviet Union is usually either broken or cannibalized for spare parts. Kazakhstani subcontractors could not necessarily be relied on to furnish promised equipment since they have previously made "exaggerated claims of the numbers. View Decision Matter of: Morrison Knudsen Corporation File: B-270703 Date: April 11, 1996 * Redacted Decision Protest against award to offeror whose proposal received a lower technical score from the source selection evaluation board than protester's and only offered a slightly lower evaluated cost is sustained where a primary basis for the source selection authority's decision to disregard the evaluation scores was not supported by the record. Attorneys DECISION Morrison Knudsen Corporation (MK) protests the award of a contract to Brown & Root (B&R) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DNA001-95-R-0026, issued by the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) for the dismantlement and elimination of intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos at four sites in the Republic of Kazakhstan. MK argues that the source selection decision was based on a misreading of the proposals. We sustain the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a 39-month cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for elimination of the missile and launch control complexes, supporting structures, and underground facilities, burial or removal of the debris and removal of salvageable materials, and general restoration of the sites to their original topography so as to facilitate civilian use. The RFP stated that the contractor could either buy new equipment that would become the property of the U.S. government or use contractor-owned or leased equipment. The solicitation provided for award to the offeror submitting the most advantageous proposal, to be determined primarily on the basis of technical/management superiority, with cost being "carefully considered." The technical/management area consisted of three subfactors (in descending order of importance): (1) technical approach; (2) experience, record of performance and personnel; and (3) support capabilities. The technical approach subfactor consisted of nine elements, including management of subcontractors. The solicitation also provided for past performance to be evaluated as a general consideration as it related to the above subfactors. Among the proposals received were MK's and B&R's; both were included in the competitive range. Following site visits and written and oral discussions, the agency requested and received best and final offers (BAFO). The source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated BAFOs as follows: TECHNICAL SCORE/RATING PROPOSED COST EVALUATED COST MK 87.6 /100 very good $29,854,118 $31,624,000 B&R 81.7 very good $31,531,912 $31,531,912 Both MK and B&R proposed to use Kazakhstani subcontractors to provide required equipment and logistics support. The SSEB found that this approach represented an unacceptable risk for the "equipment intensive project" contemplated by the statement of work because (1) generally, "in- country equipment" in the successor states to the former Soviet Union is usually either broken or cannibalized for spare parts, and (2) specifically, Kazakhstani subcontractors could not necessarily be relied on to furnish promised equipment since they have previously made "exaggerated claims of the numbers, types and availability of equipment and supplies, spare parts and consumables." The SSEB therefore recommended award to one of the higher-cost offerors proposing to import equipment into Kazakhstan. The SSA rejected the SSEB's recommendation, concluding that the lower risk associated with these latter proposals did not warrant their substantially higher cost.