Advanced American Diving Service, Inc.

B-274766 Jan 02, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency improperly evaluated protester's alternate design proposal for bulkheads as technically unacceptable and impermissibly made award on the basis of initial proposals is denied. Technically acceptable offeror without discussions was consistent with the solicitation. AAD challenges the agency's determination that its proposed alternate design for the bulkheads was not supported by sufficient information. That offers "should demonstrate that the alternate approach is realistic and more beneficial in terms of schedule and performance risk than the government specified approach.". That the required work will be performed satisfactorily. Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced. View Decision Matter of: Advanced American Diving Service, Inc. File: B-274766 Date: January 2, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Advanced American Diving Service, Inc. (AAD) protests the rejection of its lowest-priced proposal as unacceptable and the award of a contract to Fletcher General, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACW57-96-R-0030, issued by the Army Corps of Engineers for fabrication/installation of two floating bulkheads (to dewater spillway bay work areas) and construction of flow deflectors/pier extensions at the John Jay Lock and Dam, Klickitat County, Washington. AAD challenges the agency's determination that its proposed alternate design for the bulkheads was not supported by sufficient information, rendering its proposal technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which contemplated an award of a fixed-price contract, permitted offers of either government or contractor designed bulkheads, and contained three technical evaluation factors of equal weight: (1) technical realism, applicable to alternate design proposals, (2) qualifications, and (3) past performance. For technical realism, the RFP advised that an alternate approach "must be practical and meet or exceed the quality and schedule terms of the government's design and technical approach" and, in this regard, that offers "should demonstrate that the alternate approach is realistic and more beneficial in terms of schedule and performance risk than the government specified approach." The RFP also stated that, to be found acceptable, offers "must provide a reasonable assurance, in the opinion of the government, that the required work will be performed satisfactorily, ahead of schedule and under budget without undue risk." Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal. The RFP advised that the government intended to make award without discussions, and that initial proposals therefore should be submitted on the offeror's most favorable terms. Five firms submitted proposals. AAD and Fletcher General both submitted alternate design proposals. AAD offered a commercial modular interlocking steel barge product known as Flexifloat, which normally is deployed in a flat, horizontal position. AAD proposed to assemble seven of these units, turn them on their sides (and ends), and stack them side-to-side and end- to-end in a vertical position to form a bulkhead. Although AAD's proposed price ($7,266,000) was low, its design was evaluated as technically unacceptable due to inadequate or omitted structural and engineering data necessary to demonstrate the feasibility of the design. [1] The Corps therefore made award to Fletcher General as the low ($7,599,800) technically acceptable offeror. [2] Specifically, the Corps determined that key categories of information, primarily concerned with structural details and engineering analysis, necessary to demonstrate adequate structural capacity of AAD's alternate design, were missing from the firm's proposal. This included details of load capacity or structural support necessary to convert the normally horizontally-deployed floats to a vertical bulkhead, including the internal bracing system, properties of materials used, such as strengths or allowable stresses, and lock connections between units. Additional areas of missing information included procedures for positioning the system into the proposed vertical mode. The agency considered all of this information to be of critical importance because using the floats in a vertical position as a bulkhead would subject them to load conditions and structural forces (i.e., a two-way bending action) different from those that would be encountered when they are used in the horizontal position where continuous buoyant support conditions exist. The agency was specifically concerned that the floats would tend to tip, causing instability, since the floats are built to be bottom-heavy so they will float top-side up.