Ocean House Builders, B-283057, September 21, 1999

B-283057 Sep 21, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest of technical and price evaluation is denied where evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation's evaluation criteria. Provided that the award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined most advantageous to the government. The RFP provided that the technical/management evaluation factors were significantly more important than price and would be afforded primary emphasis in the evaluation. Were listed in descending order of importance as follows: (1) project management ability. Id. at 63. /1/ The RFP provided that although price was second in importance. Offerors were required to submit a fixed-price coefficient/price multiplier (representing contractor overhead. View Decision Matter of: Ocean House Builders File: B-283057 Date: September 21, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Ocean House Builders (OHB) protests the award of a contract to Landmark Construction Corporation (LCC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F45603-99-R8002, issued by the Department of the Air Force for simplified acquisition base engineer requirements. OHB challenges the evaluation of its proposal and the agency's award determination. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on February 16, 1999, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base period and four 1-year option periods. RFP cover sheet. The RFP, as amended, provided that the award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined most advantageous to the government, technical/management evaluation factors and price considered. RFP amend. 2, at 63. More specifically, the RFP provided that the technical/management evaluation factors were significantly more important than price and would be afforded primary emphasis in the evaluation. Id. The technical/management evaluation factors, which each included two or more subfactors (for a total of 14 subfactors), were listed in descending order of importance as follows: (1) project management ability; (2) project development/planning and minimal design; (3) subcontracting support capability; (4) experience/past and present performance; and (5) project execution and technical capability. Id. at 64-65. The RFP stated that these factors would receive a color rating (showing how well the offeror's proposal met the evaluation standards and solicitation requirements) and a proposal risk rating (assessing the risk associated with the offeror's proposed effort to accomplish the solicitation requirements). Id. at 63. /1/ The RFP provided that although price was second in importance, it would contribute substantially to the source selection decision and would be evaluated for completeness, realism, and reasonableness. Id. at 63. Offerors were required to submit a fixed-price coefficient/price multiplier (representing contractor overhead, contingencies, and profit) for military family housing (line item No. 2) and other real property (line item No. 1); these coefficients would be used by the agency to determine the price of work for each task order. Id. at 3. Essentially, standardized unit prices in the current RS Means Computerized Pricing Guide, a trade publication which provides cost information on various construction projects, would be multiplied by an offeror's relevant fixed-price coefficient to determine the actual price for a unit of work. Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 1. /2/ Six firms submitted proposals by the closing time on March 29. As relevant here, technical proposals were evaluated by the agency's four-member technical evaluation team. Basically, for each of the 14 subfactors, the evaluators individually rated each proposal and prepared narratives of the proposal strengths and weaknesses, which supported the assigned color/adjectival ratings, and prepared narratives explaining the assigned proposal risk ratings. The evaluators subsequently met as a group, discussed the proposals and individual ratings, and assigned consensus ratings. The agency included three proposals, including those of OHB and LCC, in the competitive range. During discussions, clarification requests and deficiency reports were presented to each competitive range offeror. Responses to these items were considered by the individual evaluators who added or deleted information from their respective narratives as deemed appropriate based on an offeror's responses. The evaluators then reconvened as a group in order to reach what became final consensus ratings. While each competitive range offeror was provided an opportunity to submit final proposal revisions for both technical and price areas, each offeror submitted final price (coefficient) revisions only. Id.