All State Boiler Work, Inc., B-277362, October 3, 1997

B-277362 Oct 03, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Numerous deficiencies in the proposed schedule management that demonstrated the offeror's lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and the sequence in which tasks were required to be performed. The protester maintains that its proposal provided a schedule that met the RFP's minimum requirements and that the evaluation and rejection are improper. The RFP was issued on December 13. Technically acceptable offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the best value to the government. The solicitation was for the modernization and conversion of four existing field erected boilers in the boiler plant to fire natural gas and #2 fuel oil as the plant fuels in lieu of #6 fuel oil. View Decision Matter of: All State Boiler Work, Inc. File: B-277362 Date: October 3, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION All State Boiler Work, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable and the award of a contract to Frank Lill & Son, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62472-94-R-0451, issued by the Department of the Navy for boiler plant modifications at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine. The protester maintains that its proposal provided a schedule that met the RFP's minimum requirements and that the evaluation and rejection are improper. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on December 13, 1996, and contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-priced construction contract to the responsible, technically acceptable offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the best value to the government. The solicitation was for the modernization and conversion of four existing field erected boilers in the boiler plant to fire natural gas and #2 fuel oil as the plant fuels in lieu of #6 fuel oil. It also required the replacement of furnace refractory in three of the four boilers and the update of the plant to current environmental air emission requirements for the new fuels. Because the boiler plant load and standby requirements permit only one boiler to be out of service at any time, the RFP contained a critical phased construction schedule which was necessary to maintain the needs of the activity. [1] The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded on the basis of initial proposals, without discussions (although it reserved to the Navy the right to conduct discussions if necessary) and provided that price and technical considerations would be of equal importance. The RFP contained four technical criteria, all equal in importance: (1) relevant experience/past performance; (2) schedule management and control; (3) corporate management; and (4) selected system/products/subcontractors. With respect to factor 2, schedule management and control, the RFP emphasized the importance of the boiler plant modifications being completed no later than the respective completion dates specified in the RFP. Under factor 2, the RFP specifically required the following: Provide proposed schedule showing starts and finishes of significant construction events and completion of entire project. The proposed schedule should detail how the phasing requirements of the contract will be incorporated into the overall project schedule. The schedule should reflect critical material delivery dates based on supplier commitments you have obtained, critical work integration points, critical equipment issues, and slack or contingencies for weather or other anticipated delays. No electronic deliverables acceptable. Proposed schedule should be in a CPM or Pert format with a minimum of 100 activities. [2] [Deleted] offers were received by the March 18, 1997, closing date for receipt of initial proposals. The initial evaluation by the technical evaluation board (TEB) resulted in [deleted] proposals being evaluated as unacceptable/susceptible of being made acceptable, with [deleted] proposals (including All State's) rated technically unacceptable. The source selection board (SSB) reviewed the proposals and the TEB and price evaluation board (PEB) findings and recommended to the source selection authority (SSA) that All State's rating be changed from unacceptable to unacceptable/susceptible of being made acceptable because it was believed that All State's deficiencies could be corrected through a round of discussions. On April 18, written discussion letters were sent to five competitive range firms, including All State. Revised proposals were received on April 29 from all five and were reviewed by the TEB. The revised proposal submitted by All State contained technical deficiencies and was again rated unacceptable/susceptible of being made acceptable. By letter dated May 8, All State was again advised of the technical deficiencies in its proposal and was also advised that this was its last opportunity to correct the deficiencies in its technical proposal and to submit a best and final offer (BAFO).