PW Construction, Inc.

PW Construction, Inc. BNUMBER: B-272248; B-272248.2 DATE: September 13, 1996 TITLE: PW Construction, Inc. ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:PW Construction, Inc. File: B-272248; B-272248.2 Date:September 13, 1996 Timothy A. Sullivan, Esq., Starfield & Payne, for the protester. James G. Ehlers, Esq., Hillyer & Irwin, for C.E. Wylie Construction Company, an intervenor. Christopher M. Bellomy, Esq., Edward B. Hanel, Esq., and George N. Brezna, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency gave preferential treatment to the awardee in its evaluation of proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the request for proposals's evaluation scheme, and the agency fairly evaluated both the protester's and the awardee's proposals. 2. Award of a contract to the offeror of the higher technically rated, higher-priced proposal was proper where the agency reasonably determined that the awardee's slightly higher-priced proposal was worth the additional cost. DECISION PW Construction, Inc. protests the Navy's award of a fixed-price construction contract to C.E. Wylie Construction Company pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. N62474-94-R-7479. The protester contends that the Navy gave preferential treatment to Wylie when evaluating proposals and that the Navy's evaluation of proposals was not consistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme. The protester also contends that it should have been awarded the contract because its proposed total price was lower than Wylie's.[1] We deny the protest. Issued on March 4, 1996, the RFP solicited proposals for demolition of existing structures and construction of three dormitories and two mechanical buildings at Travis Air Force Base[2] and contained detailed drawings and specifications concerning the buildings to be constructed. The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the offeror whose conforming offer was determined to be most advantageous to the government after consideration of price and other factors. Eight proposals were received by the April 10 closing date for submission of initial proposals. After evaluation, seven proposals were included in the competitive range. Because all offers were priced at more than the available funding, the Navy took several actions aimed at ensuring that the project would be completed within available funding constraints. The Navy had its project architect/engineer review the project to determine whether any potential savings could be identified. The Navy also asked the Air Force to provide additional funding; the Air Force complied. In addition, during discussions, competitive range offerors were asked for their recommendations for deleting requirements in order to lessen the overall cost. After considering potential cost-saving measures from all sources, the Navy issued amendment 0004 requesting best and final offers (BAFO), deleting a large number of requirements, modifying others, and generally reducing the scope of the project. BAFOs were received by May 10 and were evaluated by the source selection board (SSB). The SSB gave Wylie's BAFO an overall rating of [deleted] and PW's BAFO an overall rating of [deleted]. Wylie's total proposed price ($16,217,472) was the second lowest-priced proposal and PW's total proposed price of [deleted] was the lowest.[3] Based on Wylie's BAFO's superior technical rating, the SSB recommended that Wylie be awarded the contract. The source selection authority (SSA) concurred, and the contract was awarded to Wylie on June 4. After a debriefing by the agency, PW filed its initial protest in our Office.[4] Essentially, PW contends that the Navy's evaluation of proposals and award decision were flawed. The protester alleges that Wylie's proposal received higher ratings as the result of preferential treatment by the SSB. The protester also asserts that the Navy gave greater weight to technical evaluation factors than to price and that the SSA failed to conduct a cost/technical tradeoff analysis. According to PW, a proper cost/technical tradeoff analysis would have resulted in award of the contract to PW on the basis of its lower-priced proposal.[5] The evaluation of proposals is primarily within the discretion of the procuring agency, not our Office; the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best means of accommodating them and must bear the consequences of a defective evaluation.