Brisk Waterproofing Company, Inc., B-276247, May 27, 1997

B-276247 May 27, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with all of the evaluation factors and subfactors. Protest that contracting agency improperly utilized an unstated factor as a best value determinant is denied where the alleged unstated factor was simply an additional consideration to a rationale which. Brisk argues that the Navy's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision were improper. To the offeror whose proposal was deemed the best value to the government. Technical/management factors were more important than price. The panel met as a team to develop a consensus evaluation. [1] The proposals were adjectivally rated under each factor and subfactor as exceptional. View Decision Matter of: Brisk Waterproofing Company, Inc. File: B-276247 Date: May 27, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Brisk Waterproofing Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Waters Craftsmen, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62477-95-R-0027, issued by the Department of the Navy for the historic preservation and restoration of the U.S. Naval Academy Chapel in Annapolis, Maryland. Brisk argues that the Navy's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision were improper. We deny the protest. The successful offeror would be awarded a fixed-price contract to perform exterior masonry and dome/roof repairs at the Chapel, with options to perform site repairs and door and window repairs. Award would be made, without discussions, to the offeror whose proposal was deemed the best value to the government, considering technical/management factors and price. Technical/management factors were more important than price. The RFP listed three equally important technical/management factors: specialized construction experience, project management, and past performance. The project management factor consisted of three subfactors: staffing, work plan, and subcontracting plan. Past performance findings would be used to validate proposals against established evaluation criteria and to assign an overall risk to the government for successful performance. The Navy received four proposals by the November 13, 1996 closing date. After the individual members of the technical evaluation panel (TEP) conducted an independent review of each proposal, the panel met as a team to develop a consensus evaluation. [1] The proposals were adjectivally rated under each factor and subfactor as exceptional, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. The final evaluation results were as follows: Waters Brisk Technical/Management Acceptable Marginal Specialized Construction Acceptable Acceptable Experience Project Management Acceptable Unacceptable 1. Staffing Acceptable Unacceptable 2. Work Plan Exceptional Unacceptable 3. Subcontracting Plan Acceptable Marginal Past Performance/Risk Outstanding/Low Outstanding/High Price $2,535,230 $2,344,600 The TEP determined that Waters's proposal, the only one rated acceptable, was reasonably priced and represented the best value to the government. [2] The contracting officer, serving as the source selection authority (SSA), concurred with the TEP's determination. Her source selection decision discussed in substantial detail the favorable qualities of Waters's proposal, as well as various shortcomings in Brisk's proposal. She concluded that while Waters's proposal was rated acceptable overall, its "outstanding, exceptionally qualified team members truly demonstrated the added value" of its proposal which was substantiated by the firm's outstanding past performance and associated low risk. The SSA's conclusion was followed by her statement that Waters's status as the stained glass contractor at the Chapel further substantiated the best value determination since the government would only have to deal with one contractor at that facility. After award was made to Waters, Brisk received a debriefing and filed this protest. Brisk's protest challenges the Navy's evaluation of proposals in numerous areas. Brisk also alleges that the Navy improperly utilized Waters's status as the stained glass window contractor for the Chapel as an unstated best value determinant. In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is not our role to reevaluate proposals. Rather, our Office examines the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord with the RFP's stated evaluation factors. ESCO, Inc., 66 Comp.Gen. 404, 410 (1987), 87-1 CPD Para. 450 at 7. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's conclusions does not render the evaluation unreasonable. Id.