Garco Construction, Inc.; Triton Marine Constructon Corporation, B-282231; B-282231.2, June 15, 1999

Garco Construction, Inc.; Triton Marine Constructon Corporation, B-282231; B-282231.2, June 15, 1999 TITLE: Garco Construction, Inc.; Triton Marine Constructon Corporation, B-282231; B-282231.2, June 15, 1999 BNUMBER: B-282231; B-282231.2 DATE: June 15, 1999 ********************************************************************** Garco Construction, Inc.; Triton Marine Constructon Corporation, B-282231; B-282231.2, June 15, 1999 Matter of: Garco Construction, Inc.; Triton Marine Constructon Corporation File: B-282231; B-282231.2 Date: June 15, 1999 Thomas D. Cochran, Esq., Witherspoon, Kelley, Davenport & Toole, for Garco Construction, Inc., and John P. Ahlers, Esq., Barokas, Martin, Ahlers & Tomlinson for Triton Marine Construction Corporation, the protesters. Kevin C. Brennan, Esq., and Carol L. O'Riordan, Esq., O'Riordan & Associates, for Nova Group, Inc., an intervenor. Ronald S. Marsh, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Marie Penny Ahearn, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation of relevant experience at less than excellent rating is denied where for such rating solicitation required successfully completed construction and start-up of two similar pressurized aircraft hydrant fueling systems and protester's subcontractor had completed construction and start-up of only one such system; agency reasonably did not credit second similar fueling system where protester's subcontractor only finished construction begun by another firm. DECISION Garco Construction, Inc. and Triton Marine Construction Corporation protest the award of a contract to Nova Group, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA67-99-R-0015, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, for construction of a pressurized hydrant fuel system for C-17 aircraft at McChord Air Force Base, Washington. We deny the protests. The RFP, as amended, provided for the award of a fixed-price contract on the basis of the best value to the government. It provided for the evaluation of proposals under the following technical evaluation factors (with possible points out of a total of 3,400): (1) relevant experience (1,000 points), (2) qualifications (1,000 points), (3) past performance (1,000) points, and (4) extent of small, small disadvantaged, and women-owned small business participation (400 points). RFP amend. 0004, sect. 2.1, at 00100-INTRO-1. The solicitation contained detailed descriptions of the experience, qualifications and past performance necessary to achieve the rating levels of excellent, very good, and acceptable. Price was not scored, but was to be of equal importance to the technical factors. The Corps received eight proposals in response to the RFP. After evaluating initial proposals, the agency held written discussions with offerors in the competitive range, including the protesters and the awardee, after which it requested and evaluated final proposal revisions. In making its best value determination, the agency considered the final consensus technical scores, proposed prices, percentage difference between the proposed prices and government estimate (GE) ($13,808,480), and cost per quality point (proposed price divided by technical score), as follows: Offeror Final Score Final Proposed Final % Diff Cost Per Quality Price GE Point Nova 3,400 $13,677,000 +0.95% $4,022.65 Triton 2,900 $12,498,450 -9.48% $4,309.81 Garco 2,900 $13,597,474 -1.5% $4,688.78 Offeror 2,500 $14,883,433 +7.8% $5,953.37 X Source Selection Memorandum (SSM) at 4, 10. Based on the determination that Nova's higher-scored, higher-priced proposal provided the best value to the government, the Corps made award to Nova on February 26, 1999. Garco's and Triton's protests followed. EXPERIENCE Triton asserts that the Corps improperly downgraded the firm's proposal under the relevant experience criterion, with a rating of 750 points instead of the full 1,000 available points, by failing to credit the firm with a completed similar project. Triton's Protest at 3-4. According to the protester, its proposed mechanical subcontractor successfully completed two similar fuel systems at Altus and Tinker Air Force Bases (AFB) and performed significant modifications on a third similar project. Triton concludes that its subcontractor surpassed the RFP requirement for a rating of good/750 points ("successfully completed construction and start-up of 1 military or civilian pressurized aircraft fueling system . . .