Barnard Construction Company, Inc.

B-271644 Jul 15, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Higher technically rated offeror was proper where the solicitation award criteria did not state that price was the determinative factor and the agency reasonably concluded that the higher total point score of the awardee's proposal. Established that it was worth the price premium. Barnard contends that the selection decision was unreasonable and inconsistent with the stated evaluation factors. Was worth 50 points. Methodology and schedule were worth 30 points and 20 points respectively. Barnard's proposal received a technical score of 72.5 points and was lowest in price. Price was also scored . Was therefore 172.5. Barnard argues that it is improper to make award to a higher-priced offeror where another. View Decision Matter of: Barnard Construction Company, Inc. File: B-271644 Date: July 15, 1996 Decision to award to higher-priced, higher technically rated offeror was proper where the solicitation award criteria did not state that price was the determinative factor and the agency reasonably concluded that the higher total point score of the awardee's proposal, resulting from its technical superiority, established that it was worth the price premium. Attorneys DECISION Barnard Construction Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Twin Buttes Constructors (TBC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1425-5-SP-60-07610, issued by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, for modification of the Twin Buttes dam in Texas. Barnard contends that the selection decision was unreasonable and inconsistent with the stated evaluation factors. We deny the protest. On September 1, 1995, the agency issued the RFP for a firm, fixed-price contract for construction of a 1.4 million square-foot slurry cutoff wall and 2,600-foot cutoff trench, to reduce foundation seepage. The base effort required construction of a test section to evaluate constructability of the cutoff wall, and the contract would contain an option for construction of the remainder of the wall, an abatement cutoff trench, upstream blanket, and geomembrane/geotextile installation. The solicitation provided for award to the offeror submitting the proposal most advantageous to the government, considering technical, price, and other factors, with technical and price factors of equal weight. Paragraph B.13 of the RFP advised offerors that the technical evaluators would consider experience, construction methodology, and construction schedule. Experience, the most heavily weighted technical factor, was worth 50 points. Methodology and schedule were worth 30 points and 20 points respectively, for a total of 100 points. For the purpose of evaluating experience, the RFP instructed offerors to provide information on any past contracts for slurry cutoff wall construction, particularly contracts of a nature similar to the effort involved here. The RFP also provided for separate evaluation of the experience of key job site personnel and specifically stated that the Bureau would not consider the experience of subcontractors in its evaluation. The agency received seven offers by the due date of November 21. The agency evaluated the proposals and conducted discussions. The agency then requested and received best and final offers on March 1, 1996. TBC's proposal received a technical score of 86.8. Barnard's proposal received a technical score of 72.5 points and was lowest in price. Barnard's proposal's combined score -- price was also scored -- was therefore 172.5, including 100 points for price. TBC's proposal, with a slightly higher price, earned a price score of 89.1, for a combined score of 176. On March 26, 1996, the Bureau awarded a contract to TBC, and this protest followed. Barnard contends that TBC's 3.5-point advantage in the total scoring does not override the protester's lower price -- $34,186,500 versus TBC's price of $38,352,544. Barnard argues that it is improper to make award to a higher-priced offeror where another, lower-priced offeror's proposal presents an acceptable level of competence. Barnard asserts that it is inconsistent with the solicitation, which stated that the agency would select the proposal most advantageous to the government, to make award at a higher price merely because one offeror's proposal scores more highly in a subjective technical evaluation. As a preliminary matter, in a negotiated procurement, there is no requirement that the government make award to the lowest-priced, technically competent offeror unless the RFP specifies that price will be determinative. Hornet Joint Venture, B-258430.2, Jan. 27, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 55. Price/technical tradeoffs may be made, and the extent to which one may be sacrificed for the other is governed only by the test of rationality and consistency with the established evaluation factors. Grey Advertising, Inc., 55 Comp.Gen. 1111 (1976), 76-1 CPD para. 325.