F2M-WSCI, B-278281, January 14, 1998

B-278281 Jan 14, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester's interpretation that provision requires particular configuration is not supported by the language of the solicitation. Protest that awardee's proposal drawings for design and construction of military housing project indicated noncompliance with solicitation requirement relating to provision of sidewalks is denied where record shows that proposal drawings were only preliminary drawings. Any deviation was de minimis and did not affect the competitive standing of protester. Agency source selection of higher-priced offeror was unobjectionable where record shows that agency's evaluation conformed to evaluation scheme stated in solicitation. That the source selection decision was not reasonable or consistent with the evaluation scheme set forth in the solicitation. View Decision Matter of: F2M-WSCI File: B-278281 Date: January 14, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION F2M/WSCI protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to HND/Hawaiian Dredging, a Joint Venture, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62742-96-R-1373, for the design and construction of bachelor enlisted quarters at the Marine Corps Base in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. F2M argues that Hawaiian Dredging's proposal did not conform to various requirements of the RFP, and that the source selection decision was not reasonable or consistent with the evaluation scheme set forth in the solicitation. We deny the protest. The solicitation requested fixed, lump-sum offers to design and construct a base quantity of up to 170 housing units [1] (base portion) with an option quantity of up to an additional 170 units (option portion). The RFP provided that the Navy would initially award at least the base quantity and would determine whether to exercise the option within 180 days of contract award. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose conforming offer was most advantageous to the government under technical and price factors, with technical and price considerations given equal weight. The technical factor was comprised of the following subfactors: building design; quality of past performance; site design and engineering; building engineering, material, quality, and maintenance; and subcontracting plan. (The agency scored proposals under the technical factor using adjectival ratings of highly acceptable, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable.) The RFP's statement of work (SOW) provided that the agency was interested in the design and construction of a facility that had a "residential" as opposed to a "barracks-like" atmosphere, and included detailed information regarding both design and construction requirements (such as quality of building materials and spatial parameters) and subjective design criteria (such as aesthetics). The SOW further identified numerous features described as "desirable," as opposed to required, and advised offerors that favorable consideration would be given to offers including one or more of the desirable features. The Navy received three proposals, all of which were found technically acceptable. Following discussions with all offerors, the agency requested best and final offers (BAFO). F2M's and Hawaiian Dredging's proposals received the same adjectival ratings under each subfactor, and both proposals were rated highly acceptable overall. (The third proposal, not relevant here, was rated lower than F2M's and Hawaiian Dredging's.) Hawaiian Dredging's price for the base and option requirements was $34,399,540, while F2M's price was $33,489,000 for one of two alternate proposals and $33,520,000 for the other. The agency's source selection board (SSB) found that Hawaiian Dredging's proposal offered the best overall value to the government despite its higher price. Upon learning of the resulting award to Hawaiian Dredging, F2M filed this protest with our Office. HAWAIIAN DREDGING'S COMPLIANCE WITH RFP REQUIREMENTS F2M maintains that Hawaiian Dredging's proposal failed to conform to the requirements of the RFP with respect to streets, parking, sidewalks, water mains, and project phasing. Contracting agencies are responsible for evaluating information or data submitted by an offeror to determine whether the offer complies technically with the requirements of the RFP, and our Office will not disturb the agency's technical judgment unless it is shown to be unreasonable. AlliedSignal, Inc., B-272290, B-272290.2, Sept. 13, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 121 at 5. Further, even where the record shows that the agency has relaxed a solicitation requirement for one offeror, our Office will not sustain a protest unless it also is established that the agency's actions were prejudicial to the protester. Kasco Fuel Maintenance Corp., B-274131, Nov. 22, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 197 at 4.