Durocher Dock & Dredge/Black & Veatch, A Joint Venture, B-

B-280853 Nov 24, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Allegation that agency improperly evaluated protester's proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated the proposal in accordance with the evaluation factors announced in the solicitation and record reasonably supports protester's overall lower technical rating. 2. Disparities in evaluation ratings among technical evaluators do not establish that the evaluation process was flawed or not rationally based in view of the potential for disparate subjective judgments of different evaluators on the relative strengths and weaknesses of technical proposals. 3. Allegations by protester whose phase one proposal was reasonably ranked eighth. That agency improperly evaluated the first- and fourth-ranked proposals is dismissed where. View Decision Matter of: Durocher Dock & Dredge/Black & Veatch, A Joint Venture File: B-280853 Date: November 24, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Durocher Dock & Dredge/Black & Veatch, A Joint Venture protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62467-98-R-0968, issued by the Department of the Navy to improve Wharf D, at the Naval Station in Mayport, Florida. The protester argues that the evaluation of its proposal was inconsistent with the solicitation. We deny the protest. The Navy issued the RFP on May 20, 1998, as phase one of a two-phase procurement under the procedures set out at Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 36.3. RFP Sec. 00202, amend. No. 0001, part I.1.2. The RFP is for the design and construction of a major waterfront improvement project at the Naval Station, Mayport, Florida. The solicitation advised offerors that the agency would evaluate proposals in two phases. Under phase one, at issue here, the RFP listed the following evaluation factors in descending order of importance: past performance, technical qualifications, management approach, and small business subcontracting effort. Id. Based upon the results of that evaluation, the Navy would then select a maximum of five of the "most highly-qualified offerors" to submit phase two proposals, which are to be evaluated based on technical considerations and price. Award is to be made to the offeror whose proposal is deemed to represent the best value to the government, considering price and technical factors. Id. Twelve firms, including the protester, responded to the RFP by the time set on June 19, for receipt of phase one proposals. A technical evaluation board (TEB) evaluated proposals by assigning adjectival ratings (exceptional, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable) under each evaluation factor, and an overall proposal rating. Based on the overall ratings, the TEB then ranked proposals from the most highly-rated (exceptional) to the lowest-rated (unacceptable) as follows: [DELETED] Exceptional [DELETED] Exceptional Offeror A Acceptable [DELETED] Acceptable Offeror B Acceptable Offeror C Marginal Offeror D Marginal Durocher Dock & Dredge/Black & Veatch Marginal Offeror E Marginal Offeror F Marginal Offeror G Marginal Offeror H Unacceptable Agency Report at 2. Based on the results of the phase one evaluation, the TEB found that the five highest-ranked proposals had demonstrated superior past performance and technical qualifications over the remaining seven firms, and recommended to the source selection board (SSB) that the firms that submitted those proposals advance to phase two of the procurement. The SSB accepted that recommendation and by letters dated July 16, the agency informed all offerors whether they were selected to proceed to phase two. Following a debriefing by the Navy conducted on July 29, the protester filed an agency-level protest, which the Navy denied. This protest to our Office followed. PROTESTER'S CONTENTIONS The protester argues that the evaluation of its proposal was flawed and inconsistent with the RFP in several respects. For instance, Durocher argues that the TEB deviated from the evaluation scheme announced in the solicitation by emphasizing certain aspects of the work described in the solicitation (primarily electrical work), but that the Navy failed to notify offerors that this portion of the work would be considered more important in the evaluation. The protester also maintains that individual evaluators were not consistent in applying the RFP's evaluation criteria. Durocher further argues that the agency improperly evaluated the proposals submitted by two firms selected to proceed to phase two of the procurement. DISCUSSION Our Office will not engage in an independent evaluation of proposals nor make an independent determination of their relative merits. Litton Sys., Inc., B-239123, Aug. 7, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para. 114 at 9. Rather, we review the agency's evaluation only to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with applicable statutes and regulations as well as with the terms of the solicitation.