Beneco Enterprises, Inc., B-283154, October 13, 1999

B-283154 Oct 13, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested an Army Corps of Engineers contract award for construction, contending that the Corps misevaluated price and did not treat it as less significant than the technical evaluation, as the solicitation required. GAO held that the Corps improperly emphasized cost over technical factors in its evaluation. Accordingly, the protest was sustained, and GAO recommended that the Corps: (1) perform new price/technical tradeoffs using a methodology consistent with the established evaluation criteria; (2) terminate any improperly awarded contract arising from the procurement; and (3) reimburse the protester for its protest costs. View Decision Matter of: Beneco Enterprises, Inc. File: B-283154 Date: October 13, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Beneco Enterprises, Inc. protests the award of three contracts to [Offeror A], Straub/Pacific LLC, and [Offeror B], under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA09-99-R-0006, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for construction services at installations under the jurisdiction of the Corps's Los Angeles District and the Bureau of Prisons' Western Region. Beneco protests that the Corps misevaluated price and did not treat it as significantly less important than technical concerns in the price/technical tradeoff, as required by the RFP evaluation scheme. We sustain the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of three indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts, with an overall maximum amount of $90 million for the 36-month duration of the contracts. /1/ RFP amend. 3, at 00100-6 and Defense Department Form 1707. The RFP explained that, after award, the three successful contractors would be eligible to compete for fixed-price or time-and-materials task orders or might be awarded sole-source task orders, if circumstances dictated. RFP amend. 3, at 00850-1. The RFP stated that the government anticipated awarding most task orders based on a competition between the awardees. Id. The RFP contained general specifications that were to apply to the task orders. RFP Sec. 01005. In addition, the RFP included detailed specifications that were to apply to a "sample project" task order calling for repairs and additions to a military dining hall. The solicitation advised that the government might or might not issue a task order for the sample project. RFP amend. 3, Bid Schedule for Sample Project, Note 1 and at 00010-3. The solicitation contemplated an initial proposal award based on a price/technical tradeoff. The RFP identified six technical evaluation factors and their relative importance, which the source selection plan (SSP) quantified on a 1,000-point scoring scale, consistent with the RFP, as follows: (1) past performance/quality (350 points), (2) management (200 points), (3) customer satisfaction (200 points), (4) understanding of requirements (100 points), (5) scheduling (100 points), and (6) small, small disadvantaged, and women-owned business participation (50 points). RFP amend 3, at 00150-6; SSP at 5-1 to 5-6. The RFP also listed two price evaluation factors, sample project price and a "pricing factor," but did not state their relative importance. RFP amend. 3, at 00150-1, 00150-4. For the sample project price, the RFP sought lump-sum prices for three line items comprising the sample project requirements. /2/ RFP amend. 3, Bid Schedule for Sample Project. For the pricing factor, the RFP asked offerors to propose a factor representing their indirect costs and profit; the RFP advised that the government would determine the prices for any sole-source task orders by multiplying this factor against predetermined unit prices appearing in a specified industry handbook (the R.S. Means Western Edition Book). RFP amend. 3, at 00010-3, 00850-6, 00850-7. As the basis for award, the solicitation stated: The technical evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The Government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical, management, quality, and/or past performance features than with making award at the lowest overall price/cost to the Government. RFP at 00150-4. The Corps convened a source selection evaluation board (SSEB) to evaluate 15 proposals received in response to the RFP. The SSEB determined that four proposals were technically unacceptable and the rest, including the protester's and the awardees', acceptable. Beneco's technical proposal received the highest score of 835 points, [Offeror A's] proposal tied for the second-highest score of 828 points, Straub's proposal received the seventh-highest score of 730 points, and [Offeror B's] proposal received the eighth-highest score of 615 points. Agency Report, Tab 8, Best Value Comparative Analysis, June 15, 1999, Para. 5.