Emmert International, B-280478; B-280478.2, October 7, 1998

Emmert International, B-280478; B-280478.2, October 7, 1998 BNUMBER: B-280478; B-280478.2 DATE: October 7, 1998 TITLE: Emmert International, B-280478; B-280478.2, October 7, 1998 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:Emmert International File: B-280478; B-280478.2 Date:October 7, 1998 Terry W. Emmert for the protester. Joseph J. Jakubik for International Chimney Corporation, an intervenor. Sherry Kinland Kaswell, Esq., and Justin P. Patterson, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. M. Penny Ahearn, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Award to higher-priced offeror was unobjectionable where, in evaluating relative merits of proposals to relocate lighthouse, agency reasonably determined that awardee's proposed "soft move" was preferable to protester's proposed "hard move," and tradeoff decision in favor of awardee's more expensive proposal was consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Emmert International protests the award of a contract to International Chimney Corporation (ICC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. CAHA-175, issued by the National Park Service (NPS), Department of the Interior for relocation of the Cape Hatteras Light Station at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Dare County, North Carolina. Emmert objects to the agency's evaluation of proposals and to the selection of ICC's more costly proposal for award. We deny the protest. The procurement was conducted under design-build procedures in two phases. In the first phase, six firms submitted qualification statements. Two firms, the protester and the awardee, were determined highly qualified and were invited to compete in phase two, at issue here, for a base design services contract, including the transportation system for the lighthouse and associated structures, and a construction services option to be awarded contingent upon funding availability. The phase two solicitation provided for award on the basis of best value with technical factors significantly more important than price, considering the total base contract amount plus the option. It further provided for the evaluation of proposals on the basis of the following technical factors (and subfactors): A. Design Proposal 1. Preparatory Work (Suitability of Work, Compatibility with Building Fabric) 2. Lift Method (Suitability and Reliability) 3. Transportation System (Suitability and Reliability of System) 4. Expectations of Incidental Building Damage during Move 5. Foundations (Suitability for Loads and Site Conditions; Compatibility with Existing Appearance) 6. Protection of Historic Building Fabric B. Management Plan 1. Design Build Schedule 2. Management Philosophy 3. Team Organization/Key Personnel 4. Quality Control Plan 5. Safety Plan 6. Public Relations After evaluation, the awardee's and protester's proposals were included in the competitive range. Discussions were held and final proposal revisions (FPR) were submitted and evaluated. ICC's highest-priced offer of $9,489,000 received the highest technical score of 95.66 (out of 100 available) points. Emmert's low offer of $8,736,000 received 76.33 technical points. The agency concluded that the superiority of ICC's technical proposal justified its higher price and represented the best value. Award was made to ICC on June 19, 1998 in the amount of $1,454,000 for the base contract, with the construction option to be awarded in the amount of $8,035,000, contingent upon funding. Of relevance in the evaluation was the distinction between the types of moves offered for the lighthouse. The protester offered a "hard move," which essentially involves lifting the lighthouse with hydraulic jacks, inserting needle beams through the base of the lighthouse, and installing a movable rail track system under the beams, consisting of rollers or skates in between a runner beam and a track beam. After movement of the lighthouse 2,900 feet to the new location, it would be lowered with hydraulic jacks onto a new foundation. In such a hard move, the hydraulic jacks would lift and lower the lighthouse, but would not operate during the actual move. In contrast, the awardee offered a "soft move," which essentially is a hard move with added hydraulic jacks above the rollers or skates which operate during the move to keep the load level, thus providing a hydraulic "float" which allows for settlement and variations in the moving track.