Sawtooth Enterprises, Inc., B-281218, December 7, 1998

B-281218 Dec 07, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Technically higher-rated quotation was reasonable. Sawtooth objects to the technical evaluation of its submission and complains that it should have received award based upon its lower-quoted price. The RFQ was issued under simplified acquisition procedures for the installation of a prefabricated steel trail bridge in the Clearwater National Forest. Technical proposals were required to address the following evaluation criteria: (1) Past performance. Quoters were informed that award would be made on a best value basis. Price was stated to be more important than technical merit. Specifications and technical drawings were provided for the trail bridge. The bridge was to be fabricated in accordance with American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges and to be fabricated in a plant certified under the American Institute of Steel Construction Quality Certification Program. View Decision Matter of: Sawtooth Enterprises, Inc. File: B-281218 Date: December 7, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Sawtooth Enterprises, Inc. protests the issuance of a purchase order to David Mark Williams Construction (DMWC) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. R1-5-98-39, issued by the U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, for a 95-foot long continental-type trail bridge across Skull Creek in the Clearwater National Forest, Idaho. Sawtooth objects to the technical evaluation of its submission and complains that it should have received award based upon its lower-quoted price. We deny the protest. The RFQ was issued under simplified acquisition procedures for the installation of a prefabricated steel trail bridge in the Clearwater National Forest. Technical proposals were required to address the following evaluation criteria: (1) Past performance, including your history of performing quality work, timely completion, and commitment to customer satisfaction. Cite all recent (within past two years) contracts performed for similar work. Include the names and telephone numbers of the customer's representative, and the name of the foreman assigned to each project. Also include the names of the designer, fabricator, and supplier of the bridge. (2) Name, qualifications, and experience of the foreman and crew members to be assigned to this project. RFQ at C-3. Quoters were informed that award would be made on a best value basis, considering price and technical merit. Price was stated to be more important than technical merit. The RFQ also provided that award may be made without negotiating with quoters. Id. Specifications and technical drawings were provided for the trail bridge. Among other requirements, the bridge was to be fabricated in accordance with American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges and to be fabricated in a plant certified under the American Institute of Steel Construction Quality Certification Program. RFQ at C-42. Fourteen quotes were received, ranging from Sawtooth's low quote of $59,200 to a high quote of $111,707; DMWC's quote was $76,522. Protest Report, Tab H. Technical submissions were reviewed by an evaluation board, which noted that both Sawtooth and DMWC had failed to provided all requested information in their technical submissions. Protest Report, Tab G, G-1. More specifically, Sawtooth did not identify the designer/fabricator/supplier of its quoted bridge, did not detail the qualifications and experience of its intended crew (two of the four listed crew were stated to have bridge building experience), and did not identify its proposed foreman. In addition, although Sawtooth identified 19 projects for its past performance information, only 1 project was for similar, albeit not recent, work (a 90-foot continental pack bridge in 1992). Id., G-2-4. The submission did include a resume for the president of the protester--who was identified as one of the crew--which indicated that the president had built over 40 bridges; the resume, however, also does not indicate that any of the bridge projects were performed recently. Protest Report, Tab E, E-4. DMWC also did not provide all requested information in its technical submission; for example, DMWC also did not detail the qualifications of its proposed crew or provide names and telephone numbers for customer representatives for identified past projects. Protest Report, Tab G, G-1. The evaluation board found, however, that DMWC identified a certified designer/fabricator/supplier for the bridge, had performed two similar bridge projects within the past 2 years (one of which was at the Clearwater National Forest), and had proposed a crew of four, including an identified foreman, who were all stated to be experienced in heavy construction and bridge setting.