Nova Group, Inc., B-282947, September 15, 1999

B-282947 Sep 15, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest is sustained where agency improperly downgraded protester's past performance based merely on protester's history of contract claims. The RFP stated a best value evaluation plan under which the technical evaluation factors were said to be approximately equal to price. The RFP stated: The Offeror's construction management plan will be evaluated for management. The RFP stated: (1) The Offeror's experience will be evaluated for completed projects of similar dollar value/scope/complexity projects (e.g. Pierside electrical utilities). (2) The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated for customer satisfaction in similar dollar value/scope/complexity projects (e.g. Customer satisfaction will be measured based on quality of workmanship. View Decision Matter of: Nova Group, Inc. File: B-282947 Date: September 15, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Nova Group, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Healy Tibbitts Builders, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62742-97-R-1313, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for pierside construction projects at the Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Nova protests the agency's evaluation of technical proposals. We sustain the protest because the Navy's evaluation of past performance improperly penalized the protester simply for using the contract claims process. The RFP, issued on December 11, 1998, contemplated the award of a fixed-price construction contract for two projects with options for eight additional projects. The RFP stated a best value evaluation plan under which the technical evaluation factors were said to be approximately equal to price. The RFP listed the technical evaluation factors in descending order of importance as follows: (a) construction management plan; (b) experience/past performance; (c) experience of key personnel; and (d) small business subcontracting. RFP amend. 0004, Sec. 00202, at 1-4. Under factor a, construction management plan, the RFP stated: The Offeror's construction management plan will be evaluated for management; coordination; phasing; conflict resolution and scheduling of the various trades to minimize disruption of the Navy's dock operations. Id. at 1. Under factor b, experience/past performance, the RFP stated: (1) The Offeror's experience will be evaluated for completed projects of similar dollar value/scope/complexity projects (e.g., construction/renovation of piers/wharves that included waterfront concrete piles and steel sheet pile installation; and pierside electrical utilities). (2) The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated for customer satisfaction in similar dollar value/scope/complexity projects (e.g., construction/renovation of piers/wharves that included waterfront concrete piles and steel sheet pile installation; and pierside electrical utilities) completed within the past fifteen years. Customer satisfaction will be measured based on quality of workmanship; timely completion of work; reasonableness of price; cooperation/responsiveness and safety. (3) The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated for general trends in customer satisfaction (as defined above) in all types of completed projects for the past fifteen years. Id. at 1-2. The corresponding proposal submission requirements for factor b required offerors to submit the experience/past performance information for similar projects as well as to submit other past performance information that may not be related to such projects. The other past performance information that was requested included "identify[ing] any and all claims submitted, reason for claim and disposition." Id. at 2. Initial proposals were due by February 16, 1999. The Navy convened a technical evaluation board (TEB) that evaluated the seven proposals received, including Nova's and Healy Tibbitts'. The TEB evaluated technical proposals on an adjectival scale (outstanding, satisfactory, marginal, unsatisfactory) detailed in the RFP. RFP amend. 0004, at 5-6. The initial evaluation ratings for Nova and Healy Tibbitts were as follows: Nova Healy Tibbitts Construction Management Plan Marginal Marginal Experience/Past Performance Satisfactory Outstanding Experience of Key Personnel Satisfactory Outstanding Small Business Subcontracting Outstanding Satisfactory Overall Satisfactory Satisfactory Agency Report at 4, encl. 4, at 8. Nova's proposal was rated marginal under the construction management plan factor essentially because it did not contain a plan that explained Nova's strategy for completing the work requirements. Agency Report, encl. 4, at 2. In this regard, Nova's initial proposal offered to develop such a plan upon award of the contract.