Roxco, Ltd., B-277545, October 27, 1997

B-277545 Oct 27, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where the agency found that the unamended evaluation criteria may not have allowed for selection of the most advantageous offer. Roxco argues that this is unwarranted and will result in an improper auction. Each individual BEQ unit was to include two living/sleeping rooms. Price and technical factors were of equal importance. There were five technical evaluation factors: (1) Project Organization. Square Footage was to be significantly more important than any of the other factors. Were to yield the offeror's total evaluated price. Unit pricing was neither solicited nor considered in determining an offeror's total evaluated price. This is a tremendous increase over the minimum requirements. . . . the life cycle savings of these additional 16 modules is $1. View Decision Matter of: Roxco, Ltd. File: B-277545 Date: October 27, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Roxco, Ltd. protests the agency's decision to reopen discussions and reevaluate proposals after making award to Roxco under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62467-95-R-1156, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), to design and build Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (BEQ) at the Naval Support Activity, New Orleans, Louisiana. Roxco argues that this is unwarranted and will result in an improper auction. We deny the protest. The RFP required the design and construction of a BEQ to include individual living units, common areas (e.g., lobbies, laundry rooms, and administration spaces), and landscape work. Each individual BEQ unit was to include two living/sleeping rooms, a kitchenette, a bathroom, and storage space. The RFP, as amended, did not require a specific number of BEQ units, but invited offerors to propose between 60 and 80 units, with an option reserved by the agency to order 12 units more than the basic quantity proposed by the offeror. The RFP solicited price and technical proposals for evaluation on a best value basis. Price and technical factors were of equal importance. There were five technical evaluation factors: (1) Project Organization, Quality Control and Safety, (2) Square Footage, (3) Roof, (4) Energy Considerations, and (5) Quality of Life. Square Footage was to be significantly more important than any of the other factors. The RFP requested lump-sum, firm, fixed prices for the basic and optional work; these lump-sum prices, as adjusted by a completion schedule price factor and the offeror's change order markup prices, were to yield the offeror's total evaluated price. Unit pricing was neither solicited nor considered in determining an offeror's total evaluated price. The agency received three proposals, including Spartan's and Roxco's, on March 10, 1997. The agency included Spartan's and Roxco's proposals in the competitive range, conducted two rounds of discussions, and requested best and final offers (BAFO). Spartan proposed a basic quantity of 76 BEQ units, plus the 12 option units, for a total evaluated price of $6,565,049; Roxco proposed a basic quantity of 62 BEQ units, plus the 12 option units, for a total evaluated price of $6,481,512. Spartan's proposal received four acceptable ratings and an exceptional rating under the most important Square Footage factor based upon its offer of 76 BEQ units. Roxco's proposal received two exceptional ratings and three acceptable ratings, including an acceptable Square Footage rating based upon its offer of 62 BEQ units. In evaluating proposals under the Square Footage factor, the technical evaluation board (TEB) estimated the life-cycle savings represented by the additional units in each proposal. [1] Regarding Spartan's proposal, the TEB stated: The offeror has proposed 76 modules. This exceeds the minimum requirements in the RFP by 16 modules. This is a tremendous increase over the minimum requirements. . . . the life cycle savings of these additional 16 modules is $1,158,336. [Emphasis in original.] In contrast, the TEB estimated the life-cycle savings represented by Roxco's proposal, which offered 2 units more than the minimally required 60 units, to be $144,792. On May 2, the source selection board (SSB) and source selection authority (SSA), having reviewed the TEB's findings, recommended award based upon Roxco's proposal, which was considered technically superior and low priced under the RFP evaluation scheme. In this regard, the SSA considered Roxco's technical proposal "slightly better" than Spartan's because it received two exceptional ratings, whereas Spartan's proposal received one exceptional rating, albeit in the most important Square Footage factor. The SSA also found Roxco to have submitted the low-priced proposal, applying the RFP price evaluation formula which disregarded unit pricing.