Matter of:Theisinger und Probst Bauunternehmung GmbH

B-275756 Mar 25, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Technically superior offeror is unobjectionable where it is consistent with the solicitation evaluation criteria. The agency reasonably determined that the difference in technical merit was sufficiently significant to justify the marginal cost difference. The record does not support the protester's theory that the agency's source selection authority must have confused proposals in making his selection. Theisinger contends that the award to a higher-priced offeror was improper because the agency's technical and past performance evaluations were flawed and the agency did not make a proper best value determination. The RFP provided for award to the responsible offeror whose offer was found most advantageous to the government considering. View Decision Matter of: Theisinger und Probst Bauunternehmung GmbH File: B-275756 Date: March 25, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Theisinger und Probst Bauunternehmung GmbH protests the award of a contract to SKE/Klee under request for proposals (RFP) No. F61521-96-R2101, issued by the Department of the Air Force as a Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) procurement for alteration, maintenance, repair and minor construction work at various facilities in the Kaiserslautern Military Community, Germany. Theisinger contends that the award to a higher-priced offeror was improper because the agency's technical and past performance evaluations were flawed and the agency did not make a proper best value determination. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued April 23, 1996, contemplated the award of an indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery, firm fixed-price 12-month contract with three 1-year options and a total ceiling of $25 million. The RFP provided for award to the responsible offeror whose offer was found most advantageous to the government considering, in descending order of importance, technical factors, past performance and cost. The solicitation set forth four technical evaluation factors, in descending order of importance: (1) project management; (2) project execution; (3) subcontracting support; and (4) experience. Under each of these four factors, proposals were evaluated against the following assessment criteria, also in descending order of importance: soundness of management approach, understanding the technical requirement, and identification and use of resources. The RFP provided that past performance would be measured using four evaluation factors in descending order of importance, including: (1) quality of service; (2) cost control; (3) timeliness of performance; and (4) customer satisfaction. Each of these past performance factors was to be measured using two assessment criteria, in descending order of importance: compliance with technical requirements and management approach. Cost was to be evaluated for completeness, realism and reasonableness, using weighted coefficients for various jobs within the construction industry and as identified by the RFP. The RFP instructed offerors to submit with their proposals information on relevant contracts. The solicitation provided that the agency "shall place emphasis on the relevance of the prior performance in relation to this requirement, rather than on the number of contracts performed." Offerors were also instructed to "explain clearly why the identified contracts [were] deemed to be relevant to the SABER [c]ontract." The Air Force received six offers by the RFP's June 6, 1996, closing date. Proposals were assessed under each evaluation factor using four color/adjectival ratings: (1) blue/exceptional (exceeds specified performance or capability in a beneficial way and has no significant weaknesses); (2) green/acceptable (meets evaluation standards and any weaknesses can be corrected); (3) yellow/marginal (fails to meet evaluation standards, but any significant deficiencies are correctable); and (4) red/unacceptable (fails to meet a minimum requirement of the RFP and the deficiency is uncorrectable without a major revision of the proposal).