Pro Construction, Inc.

B-272458 Oct 10, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Solicitation evaluation scheme which states that technical merit is to be evaluated on the basis of four factors. That technical merit and cost are to be weighed equally. That award will not necessarily be made to low-priced offeror cannot plausibly be construed to require that award be made to the low- priced. Pro Construction argues that the award determination was inconsistent with the RFP evaluation criteria. Each proposal will be reviewed and evaluated on its own merits by qualified personnel to ensure its acceptability. The evaluation will be based strictly on the content of the proposal and any subsequent communications. Six proposals were received by the April 6 closing date. The evaluation board determined that the proposal offered by Texas-Capital was a better value for the government and worth the approximately $272. View Decision Matter of: Pro Construction, Inc. File: B-272458 Date: October 10, 1996 Solicitation evaluation scheme which states that technical merit is to be evaluated on the basis of four factors, three of equal importance and one of lesser importance, that technical merit and cost are to be weighed equally, and that award will not necessarily be made to low-priced offeror cannot plausibly be construed to require that award be made to the low- priced, technically acceptable offeror. Attorneys DECISION Pro Construction, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Texas-Capital Contractors, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62470-94-R-4701, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command for house repairs and improvements to Capehart Housing at the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. Pro Construction argues that the award determination was inconsistent with the RFP evaluation criteria. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued March 6, 1996, contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price/indefinite quantity contract for housing repairs and improvements. The solicitation stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, would be the most advantageous to the government, price and other factors specified in the solicitation considered, and that the government may accept other than the lowest offer. Section 00160 of the RFP set forth the evaluation scheme, specifying that price and technical factors would be weighted equally, and that among the listed technical factors, corporate experience, timely completion and management team would be of equal importance, while a fourth factor would be of less importance. Finally, the same section of the RFP provided that: "PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA: The required proposal submittals shall address all requirements of the RFP. Each proposal will be reviewed and evaluated on its own merits by qualified personnel to ensure its acceptability. The evaluation will be based strictly on the content of the proposal and any subsequent communications, if necessary, to clarify the proposals. The proposals shall be determined acceptable or not acceptable by the [c]ontracting [o]fficer based upon evaluation of the proposals." Six proposals were received by the April 6 closing date, including those of Pro Construction and Texas-Capital. The technical evaluation board reviewed the initial proposals using the following adjectival rating scheme: (1) superior; (2) acceptable; (3) unacceptable but susceptible to correction; and (4) unacceptable. After discussions and the eventual submission of best and final offers (BAFO), Pro Construction's BAFO received an overall "acceptable" rating and Texas-Capital's BAFO received a "superior" rating. The evaluation board determined that the proposal offered by Texas-Capital was a better value for the government and worth the approximately $272,000 additional cost based on Texas-Capital's excellent and extensive corporate experience and its early completion schedule. Award was made to Texas-Capital on June 25 and this protest followed. Pro Construction contends that the RFP evaluation scheme requires that the award be made to the low-priced technically acceptable offeror. Pro Construction relies on the above-quoted sentence that the proposals shall be determined acceptable or not acceptable by the contracting officer. The protester argues that this sentence requires a "go/no go" technical evaluation, and that the agency improperly evaluated the proposals on the basis of relative technical merit under the four criteria listed above, instead of simply determining whether the proposal was "acceptable" or "unacceptable". [1] Evaluation and award in negotiated procurements are required to be made in accordance with the terms of the RFP. Industrial Data Link Corp., B-248477.2, Sept. 14, 1992, 92-2 CPD Para. 176.