Beneco Enterprises, Inc., B-283512, December 3, 1999

B-283512 Dec 03, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The agency gave the highest possible rating to an offeror with no JOC prime contractor experience and whose experience was in performing relatively small dollar construction contracts. The guaranteed minimum contract value per year is $300. 000 and the estimated maximum value per year is $5 million or a maximum total of $25 million for all contract years if the annual estimated maximum value is exceeded. There are no other limitations on the number or value of task orders that may be issued under the JOC. Price was to be offered in coefficient form as a percentage of unit prices for the various construction tasks listed in the unit price book (UPB). /1/ and was to be evaluated on an estimated contract value of $3 million for the base period and each of the option years. /2/ RFP at B-1. View Decision Matter of: Beneco Enterprises, Inc. File: B-283512 Date: December 3, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Beneco Enterprises, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Hammer LGC, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT01-99-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Army for construction, repair and maintenance of real property at Fort Rucker, Alabama. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued March 10, 1999, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity job order contract (JOC) for the construction services for 1 year with 4 option years. RFP at B-3 to B-6 and amend. 0002, at C-1. Under the JOC, task orders may be issued in any amount from $2,000 to $300,000; larger orders to a maximum of $2 million may be issued, with specific approval, for emergency situations. RFP amend. 0002, at C-2. The guaranteed minimum contract value per year is $300,000 and the estimated maximum value per year is $5 million or a maximum total of $25 million for all contract years if the annual estimated maximum value is exceeded. RFP amend. 0002, at C-1, H-3. There are no other limitations on the number or value of task orders that may be issued under the JOC. RFP at I-11. The RFP stated that award would be based on the best overall value to the government, considering the technical, past performance, price, cost/price realism and subcontracting plan evaluation factors. RFP at M-1 and amend. 0002, at M-2. Price was to be offered in coefficient form as a percentage of unit prices for the various construction tasks listed in the unit price book (UPB), /1/ and was to be evaluated on an estimated contract value of $3 million for the base period and each of the option years. /2/ RFP at B-1, M-5. The RFP stated the relative significance of the evaluation factors as follows: In order to receive consideration for award, the coefficients (price) must be considered reasonable and realistic, and any large business offeror must have a satisfactory subcontracting plan. Of the remaining factors set forth above, technical is somewhat more important than past performance, past performance is slightly more important than price. Technical and past performance combined are significantly more important than price. RFP amend. 0002, at M-2. The RFP also identified subfactors under the technical and past performance factors and their relative importance. Among the technical subfactors was the management plan, where contractor staff was evaluated. Id. The past performance subfactors were (a) quality of service, (b) timeliness of performance, (c) cost control, (d) business relations, and (e) customer satisfaction. RFP amend. 0002, at M-4. The RFP also stated: Past performance will be used to conduct a performance risk assessment as it relates to the probability of successfully accomplishing the proposed effort. Id. The RFP proposal instructions identified the minimum information that offerors were to provide corresponding to each evaluation factor. Under past performance, offerors were to list all contracts awarded during the past 3 years from all sources. The RFP stated that the Army would issue past performance surveys to the sources of these contracts for the purpose of evaluating offerors under the past performance factor. RFP amend. 0002, at L-12, L-13. The RFP then stated: Each offeror will be evaluated on his/her performance under existing and prior contracts for similar construction work. Performance information will be used for both responsibility determinations and as an evaluation factor against which offerors' relative ranking will be compared to assure best value to the Government. The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality of performance relative to the size and complexity of the procurement under consideration. RFP amend. 0002, at L-13 (emphasis added). The agency received six initial proposals. After evaluating these proposals, the Army established a competitive range of four proposals, including Beneco's and Hammer's.