McHugh/Calumet, a Joint Venture, B-276472, June 23, 1997

B-276472 Jun 23, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is denied where record shows awardee's experience was reasonably determined to include projects more directly comparable to the proposed project. Protest that agency violated Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 15.610(c)(6) by not advising protester of adverse past performance reference is sustained as the regulation clearly requires such discussions where. Were as follows: (1) quality control plan (40 percent). Four proposals were received by the closing time. 200) was lower than HHN's ($50. Which was 1.2 points higher than the score of 77.1 received by McHugh's BAFO. Which was the most important factor. The evaluated difference with respect to past performance was "the major difference" between the offerors. View Decision Matter of: McHugh/Calumet, a Joint Venture File: B-276472 Date: June 23, 1997 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION McHugh/Calumet, a Joint Venture (McHugh) protests the award of a contract to Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc. (HHN) under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-05P-GBC-0015, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for construction of a new federal courthouse in Hammond, Indiana. The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated proposals and failed to conduct adequate discussions. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price contract for the construction of a 270,000-square-foot, four-story, limestone-clad courthouse housing seven courtrooms, federal office space, a cafeteria, and a firing range. The solicitation provided for award to the offeror whose proposal provided the greatest value to the government, with price equal to technical factors. The technical factors, in descending order of importance (along with evaluation weighting), were as follows: (1) quality control plan (40 percent), (2) past performance on similar projects (35 percent), and (3) key personnel qualifications (25 percent). Four proposals were received by the closing time, three of which--including HHN's and McHugh's, the only ones relevant here--remained in the competitive range until the source selection. The agency conducted three rounds of discussions and afforded offerors opportunities to submit revised offers and two rounds of best and final offers (BAFO). Although the (base) cost of McHugh's final BAFO ($49,237,200) was lower than HHN's ($50,263,000), HHN's BAFO received a consensus technical score of 78.3, which was 1.2 points higher than the score of 77.1 received by McHugh's BAFO. While McHugh's technical proposal received slightly higher consensus scores for quality control (32.25 versus 32), which was the most important factor, and key personnel (19.2 versus 18.3), the least important factor, HHN's proposal received a somewhat higher score for past performance (28 versus 25.56), the second most important factor. According to the agency, the evaluated difference with respect to past performance was "the major difference" between the offerors. Specifically, the SSEB concluded that HHN's past performance (1) was more relevant to the proposed project than McHugh's, and (2) showed that the firm is more willing to work as a part of a team in order to keep costs down, the project on schedule, and the building tenants happy. The SSEB determined that the advantages of HHN's technical proposal were worth the associated $1,026,000 price premium, and that HHN's BAFO offered the greatest value to the government. Upon learning of the resulting award to HHN, McHugh filed this protest. McHugh challenges the agency's evaluation of, and conduct of discussions with respect to, past performance on similar projects. We find that the evaluation was unobjectionable, but that GSA improperly failed to discuss past performance information with McHugh. PAST PERFORMANCE ON SIMILAR PROJECTS The solicitation generally provided for evaluation of past performance based on "the number and complexity of comparable projects associated with the Offeror's key personnel, previous client assessments of Offeror's performance, and the Offeror's team experience in working together on previous projects." The RFP specified the following "primary considerations": (1) completion on time and within budget; (2) commitment in terms of quality, time and cost; (3) working relationship with owner, including problem resolution and change order execution; (4) working relationship with architect/engineer; (5) scope of services; (6) success in meeting owner's needs and expectations; (7) Occupational Safety and Health Administration record; and (8) references. Proposals were required to include a one-page description and references for each of two sample projects, completed within the last 5 years, with "similar scope, requirements, and/or complexity" to the project contemplated by the RFP. [1] In addition, GSA reserved the right to consider projects other than the two sample projects.