High Country Contracting, B-278649, January 30, 1998

B-278649 Jan 30, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest alleging that agency's evaluation of the protester's experience was unreasonable is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated the information submitted by the protester to determine the firm's relevant experience and that this determination is reasonable. High Country alleges that the agency's evaluation of the firm's experience was unreasonable. The RFP stated a "best value" evaluation scheme in which technical capability and price were equally important. That award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined most advantageous to the government. Offerors were advised that the agency intended to award the contract on the basis of initial offers. View Decision Matter of: High Country Contracting File: B-278649 Date: January 30, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION High Country Contracting protests the award of a contract to Twin Oaks Construction under request for proposals (RFP) No. R6-3-97-96C(N), issued by the Department of Agriculture, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. High Country alleges that the agency's evaluation of the firm's experience was unreasonable, resulting in the selection of a higher-priced offeror. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract to construct 5.1 miles of Valley Trail on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington State. The RFP included a detailed statement of work and drawings describing the required services. The RFP stated a "best value" evaluation scheme in which technical capability and price were equally important, and that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined most advantageous to the government. Offerors were advised that the agency intended to award the contract on the basis of initial offers. The technical capability factor consisted of two subfactors--experience (30 points) and past performance (70 points). Under the technical proposal instructions, the RFP advised: Each offeror will be evaluated on their experience as shown for existing and prior contracts. Experience information will be used as part of the capability evaluation factor against which offerors' relative rankings will be compared to assure best value to the Government. For evaluation purposes, the RFP included an experience questionnaire which requested that offerors submit information concerning their current projects and those projects completed within the last 3 years. In this regard, offerors were asked to list the types of projects performed and their dollar value, and identify a point of contact (including address and telephone number) for each project listed on the questionnaire. In addition, the questionnaire required offerors to identify the number of years the firm has performed "the line of work contemplated by this solicitation," and the experience of the firm's principal individuals. Four proposals were received by the closing date for receipt of initial proposals. In evaluating High Country's proposal under the experience subfactor, the agency found that High Country had listed only three projects on the experience questionnaire that were completed--a trail and bridge project, and two bridge projects. The two company principals were listed as having 5 and 2 years experience, respectively. High Country did not enter any response to the number of years of experience it had in the line of work to be performed under this contract. The protester also did not list any current or ongoing relevant work. The reference provided by High Country for both the trail and bridge project and one of the two listed bridge projects was contacted regarding his experience with the firm. The agency was advised that High Country had been awarded three trail construction contracts and a purchase order, that High Country's construction of these trails was "fairly good to very good depending on his crew," and that High Country's performance had "improved on each contract." The contracting officer learned that these three trails were constructed under drier conditions on the east side of the mountains as opposed to the wet and muddy conditions of the west side of the mountains where the Valley Trail will be constructed. Moreover, the contracting officer considered the other projects identified in High Country's experience questionnaire, as well as High Country projects she was familiar with, to be smaller and less relevant to the current project. The contracting officer's concerns with High Country's inexperience with trail work were exacerbated by the fact that some of the services required for the Valley Trail construction (i.e., tread stabilization and side hill turnpikes) had caused contractors difficulty in prior procurements and because of the many flood repair projects underway, fewer agency personnel were available to perform contract administration.