Pickering Firm Incorporated, B-277396, October 9, 1997

B-277396 Oct 09, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Record fails to show that evaluation and selection decision were inconsistent with CBD announcement where the announcement identified none of the nine disciplines as more important than the others. Source selection board could reasonably conclude that there was no significant difference in the qualifications and experience of the two firms. Source selection board's conclusion that awardee's proposal presented an advantage in its superior knowledge of local and regional codes and regulations was consistent with the announced factors. General Accounting Office will not reevaluate offeror's capabilities or make its own determination of the relative merit of proposals. Protest challenging conduct of interviews of A-E firms because not all members of the source selection board attended interviews is denied where agency's regulation does not require all members to be present. View Decision Matter of: Pickering Firm Incorporated File: B-277396 Date: October 9, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Pickering Firm Incorporated protests the proposed award of a contract to Johnson and Bailey Architects, P.C. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACW62-97-R-0006, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District, for design services for an environmental education center/children's museum, which the agency contemplates constructing sometime next year. Pickering contends that the agency unreasonably and improperly evaluated proposals; specifically, Pickering argues that the evaluation was performed in such a way as to favor local, Nashville-area firms. We deny the protest. On December 6, 1996, the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) published the agency's request for interested firms to submit a statement of their qualifications to be considered for the award of a contract to prepare design documents for construction of an environmental education center/children's museum in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The project would consist of two phases: phase I, preparation of the site in advance of construction (including environmental remediation, asbestos abatement plans, and demolition plans for two existing municipal buildings); and phase II, preparation of final plans and specifications for construction of the new building, including site development, roads, parking, utility relocation, and wetland/spring interpretation. The CBD notice advised firms of the need to demonstrate expertise in the disciplines of architecture, environmental, civil, structural, electrical, mechanical, landscape architecture, interior design, and museum/exhibit design. It listed the selection criteria, in descending order of importance, as follows: a. Professional qualifications of the key project management and technical personnel to be assigned to the contract. Evaluation factors will include the education, training, experience, and registration of these personnel. b. Specialized experience and technical competence of the prime firm and any subcontractors in the type of work required. Evaluation factors will include knowledge of local and regional codes and regulations, the effectiveness of the proposed management structure and the prior working relationship between a prime firm and any subcontractor. A single point of contact between the [architect-engineer (A-E)] and the Government project manager must be clearly identified. c. Capacity of the firm to accomplish the work. d. Past performance and experience on [Department of Defense (DOD)] and other contracts with respect to cost control, quality of work, and compliance with schedules. e. Geographical proximity of the office responsible for contract negotiations and production of the work in relationship to the Nashville District Office and the city of Murfreesboro, TN. f. Volume of DOD contracts within the last twelve months with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified A-E firms including small and small disadvantaged business firms. Criteria a-d were described as "primary," with criteria e and f to be used only as "tie-breakers" among technically equal firms. Fifteen firms submitted the required standard forms (SF) 254 (a general questionnaire for A-E and related services) and 255 (relating to the specific services being solicited) by January 3, 1997. The agency established a source selection board (SSB), which evaluated the firms' qualifications. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 36.6, the agency selected three firms, including the protester and the awardee, as most highly qualified to perform the services. See FAR Sec. 36.602-3(d). The SSB invited the three firms for interviews on February 4; one member of the SSB served as chairman at all of the interviews and the remaining members were represented by subordinates.