Davies Rail and Mechanical Works, Inc., B-278260.2, February

B-278260.2 Feb 25, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency improperly evaluated technical proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors. Davies contends that the proposals were not evaluated properly and that in making its best value determination. Both cranes are to be installed at Norfolk Naval Shipyard. Section M-1 of the RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the best value to the government. Who will be involved in the design of these cranes. . . . How does your company ensure that your designs are fully coordinated among the disciplines. Describe how the crane will be erected/installed. e. Who will be assigned to this project. 3. View Decision Matter of: Davies Rail and Mechanical Works, Inc. File: B-278260.2 Date: February 25, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Davies Rail and Mechanical Works, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Ederer, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62472-97-R-1641, issued by the Department of the Navy, Navy Crane Center (NCC) for certain overhead electric traveling (OET) cranes. Davies contends that the proposals were not evaluated properly and that in making its best value determination, the agency failed to take into account all of the appropriate considerations. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued May 22, 1997, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to design, fabricate, assemble, test, deliver, and install one 100-ton main hoist with a 50-ton auxiliary hoist OET crane, with an option for a 50-ton main hoist with a 10-ton auxiliary hoist OET crane. Both cranes are to be installed at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, Virginia. Section M-1 of the RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the best value to the government, price and other factors considered. Section M-4 identified technical evaluation factors and subfactors as follows: 1. TECHNICAL APPROACH composed of the following five elements: a. Describe your technical approach for meeting the required maximum wheel loads and minimum wheel spacings set forth in the specification. b. Describe the general procedures your company uses in designing cranes. Provide the names and experience resumes of the structural, mechanical and electrical engineers, who will be involved in the design of these cranes. . . . How does your company ensure that your designs are fully coordinated among the disciplines. Provide the name, registration and background experience for each professional engineer responsible for the design of the cranes called for by the solicitation. c. Provide a description of your plant (capacity, location, etc.) and the special facilities (paint facilities, calibration equipment, cutting tables, cranes, etc.) available. d. Describe how the crane will be erected/installed. e. Describe your quality assurance system. 2. MANAGEMENT PLAN composed of the following elements: a. Describe your proposed schedule and milestones for completing this work within the timeframes set forth in this solicitation. Include in your description the scheduling method you plan to use to manage this project and a sample of a schedule used on a project of similar magnitude and complexity completed within the last three (3) years. b. Provide resumes for the Project Manager, Lead Design Engineer, Quality Control Manager, Plant Superintendent and Field Superintendent, who will be assigned to this project. 3. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE List at least five (5) previous projects that were worked on within the past five (5) years that demonstrate your ability to design, manufacture, install and test cranes of a similar capacity and complexity as this project. Provide phone numbers and points of contact for each project. If subcontractors will be used, provide similar past experience data for the subcontractor. In addition, describe the projects on which you have worked together in the past. Section M-4 advised that technical factors and price would be weighted equally and that the three technical factors and the subfactors of each factor would also be weighted equally with respect to each other. For award purposes, section M-1 provided that price would be evaluated by adding the total price for the option to the total price for the base requirement, but that evaluation of the option would not obligate the government to exercise the option. Eight proposals, including those of Davies and Ederer, were received by the June 24 closing date. The proposals were evaluated by a source selection board (SSB), comprised of a technical evaluation board (TEB), which reviewed the technical proposals, and a price evaluation board, which evaluated the price information.