Kellie W. Tipton Construction Company, B-281331.3, March 22,

B-281331.3 Mar 22, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency termination of contract for the convenience of the government is unobjectionable where. Allegation that agency misevaluated proposals with respect to past performance is denied where the record shows the agency evaluation was reasonable and did not conflict with the solicitation evaluation criteria. The agency's decision to evaluate only 5 references for all offerors did not prejudice the protester and was otherwise unobjectionable. 3. Agency determination that allegedly enhanced hourly rates for two line items did not represent a risk that the government would pay unreasonably high prices is reasonable where award to offeror proposing those labor rates results in lower price because the rates apply only to two contingent labor categories which affect only a small percentage of the total price. View Decision Matter of: Kellie W. Tipton Construction Company File: B-281331.3 Date: March 22, 1999 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Kellie W. Tipton Construction Company (Tipton) protests the termination for convenience of its contract for installation and replacement of water and sewer lines at Fort Campbell, Kentucky awarded by the Department of the Army, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAKF23-98-R-0219, and the Army's decision to award a contract for these services to Terry Land Development, Inc. (TLD). We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on August 17, 1998, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract for a base period with two 12-month option periods. RFP Sec. 00100, Para. 8. The RFP contained a price list for the specific tasks to be performed which included cost for labor, materials, and equipment. RFP amend. No. 0001, Sec. 00010, at 00010-4. Additionally the schedule required prices to be submitted for contract line items (CLIN) Nos. 0004 and 0005 for labor costs for work to be performed in Kentucky and Tennessee, respectively, to be used when required work was not included in the price list. RFP amend. No. 0005, Sec. 00010, at 00010-3. The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose offer represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors and subfactors in the solicitation. RFP Sec. 00100, Para. 19.c(1). The RFP stated that the technical evaluation factor was past performance, consisting of the two subfactors of customer satisfaction (CS) and experience modification factor (EMF). /1/ Id. Para. 19.c(2). Technical (i.e., past performance) was significantly more important than price, and of the technical subfactors, CS was significantly more important than EMF. Id. CS was to be evaluated based on information obtained from customer references provided by offerors. /2/ Id. Para. 19.b.(1)(a)(1). Offerors were required to identify a minimum of 10 contracts and subcontracts performed within the last 3 years and similar to the current requirement. Id. Specifically, the agency sent PPQs to firms identified by the offerors as references regarding prior construction work. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Source Selection Plan, at 1. The PPQ consisted of a series of 10 questions regarding the quality of work performed by the offeror for the firm responding to the questionnaire. The questions were answered by circling a number from 1 through 5, with 5 denoting "EXCELLENT" and 1 denoting "UNSATISFACTORY." Id. at 5th unnumbered page. The PPQ total was calculated by adding the numerical results selected for each of the 10 questions. This result in turn was averaged with other PPQ and CS results to arrive at a total CS score. AR, Cover Letter at 3. The Army received seven proposals in response to the RFP. As a result of the initial evaluation, Tipton's proposal was ranked first and TLD's was ranked third. AR, Tab 7, Price Negotiation Memorandum, at 13th unnumbered page. The results of the initial evaluation were as follows: Offeror EMR/pts./3/CS Total Tech. Score/4/ Price Score Total Score Tipton (.81)/40 45.6 85.6 300 204.59 504.69 Offeror (.87)/40 50.9 90.9 400 74.08 474.08 A TLD (.82)/40 38.8 78.8 200 266.67 466.67 AR, Cover Letter at 3. Tipton's proposal received the high total score of 504.69 and was determined to represent the best value; award was made to Tipton on September 30. AR, Tab 7, Price Negotiation Memorandum, at 3d unnumbered page. On October 14, TLD was debriefed by the agency. On October 19, TLD filed a protest with our Office alleging that it had submitted the lowest-priced offer and was qualified to perform the work and complaining that it had been advised that the selection of an awardee was based on considerations other than price. On October 20, we dismissed that protest for failure to state a valid protest basis.