Dawco Construction, Inc., B-278048.2, January 2, 1998

B-278048.2 Jan 02, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Where record shows that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the factors announced in the solicitation. Much higher-rated proposal was consistent with solicitation that provided that technical factors would be equal in importance with price in the selection of a contractor. Dawco asserts that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable and that its selection decision was contrary to the stated evaluation factors. The solicitation provided for award to the offeror whose offer was determined most advantageous to the government. We will examine an agency's evaluation and selection decision to ensure that they are reasonable and consistent with the criteria listed in the solicitation. View Decision Matter of: Dawco Construction, Inc. File: B-278048.2 Date: January 2, 1998 *REDACTION DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Dawco Construction, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Harper/Nielsen Dillingham Builders (HND) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68711-96-R-2326, issued by the Department of the Navy for design and construction work on housing units and a housing office and community center. Dawco asserts that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable and that its selection decision was contrary to the stated evaluation factors, giving too much weight to technical factors. We deny the protest. On March 18, 1997, the agency issued the RFP for a firm, fixed-price contract for repair, revitalization, and improvement of 198 family housing units, as well as the design and construction of a new community center and a new housing office at the Shadow Mountain housing complex, serving the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, California. The solicitation provided for award to the offeror whose offer was determined most advantageous to the government, considering price and technical evaluation factors. RFP Para. 1C.1. The RFP listed the following five technical factors in descending order of importance: (1) design and construction; (2) past performance, contractor/architect- engineer (A-E)/subcontractor experience, and qualifications; (3) quality, durability and energy efficiency of proposed materials; (4) subcontracting effort; (5) sustainable design, construction and recycling considerations. RFP Para. 5B.2. The RFP stated, at Para. 5B.2(1), that the evaluation of design and construction, the most important technical subfactor, would be based on the quality of the submitted design for each model type for the 198 units of the Shadow Mountain Housing site as shown by the exterior elevations and basis of design. The evaluation of the Housing Office and Community Center shall be based on the quality of the building elevations design, and the landscape plans and other amenities provided. With regard to the second most important technical subfactor, past performance, contractor/A-E/subcontractor experience, and qualifications, the RFP provided, at Para. 5B.2(2), for consideration of the offeror's reputation for satisfying its customers by delivering quality work in a timely manner at a reasonable total cost. Also includes an offeror's reputation for effectiveness of management, and commitment to customer satisfaction. The RFP stated that the evaluators would consider (a) the similarity of experience in scope, dollar value, and complexity to the instant effort; (b) the degree of satisfaction expressed by the customer; (c) the timely completion of the project; and (d) the qualifications and experience of the entire design/build team. Id. In evaluating the team's qualifications and experience, the RFP provided that the Navy would consider the proposed management team, including "resumes of the contractor's principals, project manager, project engineer, and superintendent"; resumes of the proposed A/E's management team; and the clarity and adequacy of the team's management roles and responsibilities. Id. Ten offerors submitted proposals by the due date of May 30, and the agency referred those proposals to a technical evaluation board (TEB), which completed its evaluation 2 weeks later. The board determined that none of the proposals conformed wholly to the solicitation requirements and that discussions, with all 10 offerors in the competitive range, would be necessary. By letters dated July 22, the Navy sent each offeror questions and requests for clarifications. In its letter to the protester, the Navy advised Dawco of unfavorable reports received in connection with [deleted]. Further, the Navy asked the protester [deleted]. The protester responded to the agency's questions by the required date of August 1; however, Dawco declined to identify [deleted], advising the Navy that, [deleted]. With regard to its design team, the [deleted]. The agency held further discussions with the offerors and requested submission of best and final offers (BAFO) by August 29.