Tri-J Contractors, B-277063.3, July 6, 1998

B-277063.3 Jul 06, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST In procurement where technical merit was to be more important than cost. Three were determined to be in the competitive range. Award to Tri-State was reconfirmed on March 10. Its proposal should have received a score equal to the awardee's. Which would have resulted in award to it based on its low price. We will examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. We have examined the evaluation here and conclude that it was both reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. Tri-J complains that its proposal improperly was downgraded based on consideration of the amount of recent experience on every line item of required work which. View Decision Matter of: Tri-J Contractors File: B-277063.3 Date: July 6, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Tri-J Contractors protests the award of a contract to Tri-State Company, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. R8-08-97-2, issued by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, for flood damage repair of the Cascades Trail located in the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, Giles County, Virginia. The protester complains that the Forest Service improperly evaluated proposals and conducted an improper best value analysis. We deny the protest. The RFP, which contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, requested proposals for the construction/reconstruction of four trail bridges and abutments, as well as trails. The required work included removal of existing bridges, construction of treated timber glue-laminated bridges, clearing, excavation, rock steps, rock waterbars, rock masonry, mortared stone work with rebar base, rock demolition, movement of large rocks, rock sign installation, and log cribbing and benches. The solicitation permitted alternate proposals and provided for evaluation of proposals on the basis of the following technical evaluation factors (and possible points out of a total of 100): (1) experience of prime contractor in Forest Service trail and foot bridge construction in remote locations with limited vehicle access (40 points); (2) feasibility of contractor's technical proposal and equipment availability (25 points); (3) experience of superintendents, foremen, and crew in trail and bridge construction, including experience in similar contracts in working in remote locations with helicopters and limited vehicle access (15 points); (4) for alternate proposals, description of construction materials and methods of construction to be used including transportation of materials to the site (10 points); and (5) logical sequence of work and approximate calendar days for each phase (progress schedule) (10 points). RFP at 116 and 117. The RFP provided that cost would be secondary to technical considerations and that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal presents the technical/cost relationship most advantageous to the government. RFP at 116. Of the six offers received, three were determined to be in the competitive range. The agency initially made award to Tri-State but, following a protest by Tri-J to our Office (B-277063, B-277063.3), the Forest Service took corrective action; it opened discussions with competitive range offerors, sending them letters listing deficiencies (including negative past performance reference comments), and then requested best and final offers (BAFO). After receipt and evaluation of BAFOs, including responses to the negative references, the agency reevaluated and rescored the proposals. Tri-State's proposal received the highest technical score, 86 points, and offered the second lowest price, $248,869. Tri-J's proposal received the second highest technical score, 66 points, and offered the low price, $246,490. The agency determined that the technical superiority of Tri-State's proposal--particularly in the areas of demonstrated experience on all required work, excellent references, proposed logical sequencing of work, and understanding of site limitations/contract restrictions--outweighed the protester's $2,379 price advantage and provided the best value to the government. Award to Tri-State was reconfirmed on March 10, 1998. This protest followed. The protester argues that the agency evaluated proposals with undisclosed criteria, ignored information submitted in its proposal, and otherwise misevaluated proposals. According to the protester, its proposal should have received a score equal to the awardee's, which would have resulted in award to it based on its low price. In reviewing a protest against an agency's evaluation of proposals, we will examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. ESCO, Inc., B-225565, Apr. 29, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 450 at 7.