A. G. Cullen Construction, Inc., B-284049.2, February 22, 2000

B-284049.2 Feb 22, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested the Air Force's rejection of its bid for repair and maintenance services, contending that its proposal, which was lowest in price, should have been selected for award. GAO held that the Air Force reasonably selected for award the higher-priced bidder with a better past performance rating. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: A. G. Cullen Construction, Inc. File: B-284049.2 Date: February 22, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION A. G. Cullen Construction, Inc. protests the rejection of its offer and the award of a contract to DiCicco Contracting Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. F36629-99-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force to maintain, alter, and repair the Base Supply, Building 312 and widen Alpha Street at Pittsburgh Air Reserve Station. Cullen contends that its proposal, which was lowest in price, should have been selected for award. We deny the protest. The RFP, which was issued on July 15, 1999, contemplated the award, without discussions, of a fixed-price construction contract to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. Best value was to be determined based on a "Price/Performance Trade-Off," in which past performance was significantly more important than price; offerors were explicitly advised in this regard that award might be made to a higher-rated, higher-priced offeror where the contracting officer determined that the offeror's past/present performance outweighed the cost difference. RFP Sec. M.1, 2. The solicitation identified five subfactors to be considered in the evaluation of performance: quality control; timely performance; management effectiveness; compliance with labor standards; and compliance with safety standards. RFP Sec. M.2.II(e). Under each subfactor were listed areas that might be considered in the evaluation. Offerors were advised that the agency would assign each proposal a rating under each subfactor and then use the subfactor ratings to determine an overall performance rating. RFP Sec. M.2.II(j). Possible ratings were exceptional/high confidence; very good/significant confidence; satisfactory/confidence; neutral/unknown confidence; marginal/little confidence; and unsatisfactory/no confidence. /1/ RFP Sec. M.2.II(i). To facilitate the evaluation of past performance, the solicitation instructed each offeror to submit with its proposal a reference list identifying all contracts (both business and government) awarded to it within the past 3 years. RFP at 21. Offerors to whom more than 10 contracts had been awarded were instructed to identify only the last 6. Id. A copy of the questionnaire to be completed by the references was included in the solicitation. /2/ Offerors were invited to submit with their proposals information concerning problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror's corrective actions. Id. Five proposals were received by the August 26 due date. Cullen's price of $890,000 was low, and DiCicco's price of $932,300 was third low. The agency mailed copies of the performance questionnaire to each offeror's references and considered those that were returned in rating each proposal. /3/ Based on the questionnaires returned by Cullen's references, the evaluators rated the protester's proposal as satisfactory under two subfactors (timely performance and compliance with safety standards) and as very good under the other three subfactors; overall, the proposal was rated as very good/significant confidence. DiCicco's proposal was rated as exceptional/high confidence under each subfactor and overall. The evaluators concluded that DiCicco's higher confidence rating outweighed its approximately 5 percent higher price and that the proposal represented the best value to the government. The source selection authority (SSA) concurred, and on September 27, the Air Force awarded a contract to DiCicco. First, Cullen argues that it should have received the award because it submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal. The solicitation here did not provide for selection of the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal; it provided for award to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government based on a price/past performance trade-off, with past performance of significantly more importance than price. Thus, it was consistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme for the agency to select other than the lowest-priced proposal where it determined that another offeror's combination of past performance and price represented a better overall value to the government. See Axion Corp., B-252812, July 16, 1993, 93-2 CPD Para. 28 at 2. To the extent that the protester is arguing that the RFP should have provided for selection of the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal, its protest is untimely.