Davies Rail & Mechanical Works Inc., B-283911.2, March 6, 2000

B-283911.2 Mar 06, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester's contention that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions is denied where the record shows the agency posed questions in the areas in which it was concerned that the proposal needed amplification and improvement. 2. Agency's selection of the proposal of an offeror whose price was less than 1 percent higher than the protester's. Was reasonable where the solicitation provided for the award to the proposal that represented the best value to the government. It should have received the award. Was unreasonable. The RFP was issued on April 6. Was amended five times. The RFP also provided that award was not required to be made to the low-priced offeror. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of two factors. View Decision Matter of: Davies Rail & Mechanical Works Inc. File: B-283911.2 Date: March 6, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Davies Rail & Mechanical Works Inc. protests the award of a contract to Ederer Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62472-98-R-1648, issued by the Navy Crane Center (NCC), Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the purchase of four cranes and the refurbishment of another crane at the submarine base in Bangor, Washington. Davies contends that as the low priced offeror, it should have received the award, and that the decision that Ederer's proposal offered the best value, notwithstanding its higher price, was unreasonable. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on April 6, 1999, and was amended five times. Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. Under the RFP, the proposal offering the best value to the government, as determined after proposals had been evaluated in accordance with the RFP evaluation criteria, would receive the award. The RFP also provided that award was not required to be made to the low-priced offeror. RFP Sec. M.1, at M-1. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of two factors, price and technical, each of which was rated equally. RFP Sec. M.5.A, at M-2. The technical factor consisted of three subfactors: technical approach, management plan, and offeror's capability/ relevant past performance; each subfactor consisted of various elements and subelements. RFP Sec. M.5.C, at M-3 to M-7. The three technical subfactors and the elements of these subfactors and their subelements were to be weighted equally with respect to each other. RFP Sec. M.5.A, at M-2. Price for evaluation purposes was to include the prices of all items, including option items (unless determined not to be in the best interest of the government). RFP Sec. M.1, at M-1. Of relevance here, under the source selection procedures established for the RFP and followed by the agency, the technical evaluation team (TET) was to evaluate each offeror's technical proposal in accordance with the RFP evaluation criteria and to assign one of the following adjectival ratings: outstanding (O), acceptable (A), unacceptable/susceptible of being made acceptable (US), or unacceptable (U). A "U" or "US" in any sub-factor would render the rating for the entire factor "U" or "US." Agency Report, Tab 2, Source Selection Plan, at 11-12. Four proposals were received by the submission deadline. After the agency's evaluation of the proposals, three proposals were included in the competitive range. Agency Report, Tab 7, Memorandum for File. The initial scoring, as relevant here, was as follows: Ederer Davies Technical Approach US US Management Plan US US Capability~Relevant O US Past Performance Overall Technical US US Agency Report, Tab 5, TET Presentation to SSA, at 12 and 40. On the elements scored under the subfactors, Ederer received an "O" for its plan to access the building containing the 50-ton crane to be refurbished from a "hatch" on the roof, and an "O" for its quality control program because Ederer was not only compliant, as required by the RFP, with the applicable quality assurance program (ISO 9001), but also was certified under the program. It received an "O" on the capability/relevant past performance subfactor because previous customers had responded to its work extremely positively. Id. at 3-4. The TET found that Ederer's proposal provided the most detailed technical approach of all the proposals, with a good demonstration of its understanding of the specifications. Id. at 41. The evaluators also rated Ederer "O" under one element of the management plan subfactor because all of the design, fabrication, and installation work would be done in-house, and the evaluators considered in-house performance the most desirable method of delivering a quality product. Id. at 8-9. Davies received a "US" rating on the capability/relevant past performance subfactor because the past contracts it had submitted for evaluation did not demonstrate a high level of design experience and fabrication capabilities.