Trataros Construction, Inc.

B-271879.2 Oct 31, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Proposal that received less than acceptable ratings in 13 of 17 evaluation areas was properly eliminated from the competitive range where the agency reasonably determined that in order to be rated acceptable. The proposal would have to be substantially rewritten. The RFP was issued on February 14. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be the most advantageous to the government considering technical/management factors and cost. Which were subdivided into subfactors. Were listed in descending order of importance: project development/planning and minimal design. Each subfactor was to be rated on a color-coded scale [2] and given a risk rating. Technical/management proposals were limited to 75 pages and the RFP cautioned offerors that incomplete submissions could be rejected without evaluation. View Decision Matter of: Trataros Construction, Inc. File: B-271879.2 Date: October 31, 1996 Proposal that received less than acceptable ratings in 13 of 17 evaluation areas was properly eliminated from the competitive range where the agency reasonably determined that in order to be rated acceptable, the proposal would have to be substantially rewritten. Attorneys DECISION Trataros Construction, Inc. protests the decision of the Department of the Air Force to eliminate its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. F28609-95-R0004 for a Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) contract at McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. [1] We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on February 14, 1996. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be the most advantageous to the government considering technical/management factors and cost, with technical/management factors identified as more important. Five technical management factors, which were subdivided into subfactors, were listed in descending order of importance: project development/planning and minimal design; project management ability; subcontracting and support capability; project execution and technical capability; and experience and past and present performance. Each subfactor was to be rated on a color-coded scale [2] and given a risk rating. Technical/management proposals were limited to 75 pages and the RFP cautioned offerors that incomplete submissions could be rejected without evaluation. Offerors were also cautioned that unrealistically low cost proposals could be rejected without further evaluation. Eleven offerors responded by the March 27 closing date. Trataros's proposal was rated as followed: Factor/Subfactor Rating Risk Necessary Revisions 1. Development, Planning, Design a. Minimal Design Red High Major b. Development/Planning Red High Complete 2. Management Ability a. Startup/Contingencies Red High Complete b. Key Management Staff Yellow Low Minor c. Quality Control (QC) Plan Yellow High Moderate d. Support/Interface/Staff Green Low None e. Financial Resources Green Low None f. Warranty and Punchlist Resources Red High Major 3. Subcontracting Support Capability a. Purchasing System/Support Level Red High Major b. Subcontract Management Yellow Moderate Moderate c. I.D. of Key Subs and Suppliers Red Moderate Major 4. Execution and Tech. Capability a. Key Support Staff Yellow Low Major b. Demonstration Level-of-Effort Red High Major c. Demonstration Alternatives Red High Major d. (No offers were evaluated under this subfactor.) Red High Major e. Demonstration Price Completeness 5. Experience/Performance a. Recent Construction Experience Green Low None b. Recent Construction Management Experience Green Low None In addition, Trataros's cost proposal was found to be unacceptable because it did not provide sufficient information regarding mobilization and demobilization expenses, bond premiums or a proportional share of home office overhead. The agency also found that Trataros failed to adequately explain and support the price coefficients set forth in its proposal; the Air Force states that these deficiencies were particularly troublesome because Trataros's estimate of demonstration project costs was 60-percent lower than the government's estimate and substantially below the estimates of other offerors. Based on the technical/management review and the cost proposal review, the Air Force concluded that major revisions were required to make Trataros's offer acceptable and consequently eliminated the offer from the competitive range. [3] The competitive range determination was documented in summary fashion on April 15, and by letter of April 18, Trataros was informed of the general reasons for the decision. This protest followed. Trataros takes exception, in whole or in part, to all of the deficiencies noted by the agency.