Marathon Construction Corporation, B-284816, May 22, 2000

B-284816 May 22, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest by offeror that it should have received higher rating for its experience and past performance based on numerous small projects. Is denied. The RFP also stated that the price and technical factors were equal in importance. Past performance was to be evaluated based on the construction of new concrete berthing wharves or piers with high voltage power. Creation of environmental habitat was to be evaluated. Were received by the initial proposal due date of October 4. A technical evaluation board (TEB) was tasked with the evaluation and rating of the first 10 subfactors under the technical expertise factor. All proposals were found to be unacceptable but susceptible of being made acceptable. View Decision Matter of: Marathon Construction Corporation File: B-284816 Date: May 22, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Marathon Construction Corporation, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Nova Group/R.E. Staite, A Joint Venture, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68711-98-R-5408, issued by the Department of the Navy for the construction of a new berthing wharf for homeporting of nuclear powered aircraft carriers at San Diego, California. Marathon principally argues that the Navy misevaluated proposals by "discounting" its experience and past performance, and that the Navy's evaluation process discriminated against it as a small business. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued August 19, 1999, contemplated a fixed-price contract (with options) for the construction of the berthing wharf. Agency Report (AR), Contracting Officer's Statement (COS), at 1. The RFP stated that evaluation would be based on best value to the government and that award of the contract would be made based on the proposal determined by the source selection authority (SSA) to be the most advantageous to the government. AR, encl. 1, RFP Sec. 00202. The RFP contained the following evaluation factors: past performance (with 8 subfactors), technical expertise (15 subfactors), proposed subcontracting effort, and price. The RFP also stated that the price and technical factors were equal in importance. Id. With respect to past performance subfactor 1, past performance was to be evaluated based on the construction of new concrete berthing wharves or piers with high voltage power, potable water, steam, sanitary sewer, oily waste, fuel, compressed air, and salt water for deep draft (draft greater than 25 feet) vessels in the last 10 years. Other subfactors also required evaluation of past performance on dredging projects in the last 5 years and past performance of contracts involving the placement of rock dikes and fill, and fill densification in the last 5 years. Id. Concerning technical expertise subfactor 1, prime contract experience and technical expertise in concrete piers/wharves construction, dredging, rock dikes and fill, fill densification, and creation of environmental habitat was to be evaluated. The RFP also separately explained that the technical evaluation under the technical expertise factor would encompass "prior experience and technical expertise in waterfront construction and dredging in Government or comparable civilian projects of the same or similar size, scope and complexity contemplated by this proposed contract." AR, encl. 1, RFP Sec. 00202. Five proposals, including Marathon's and Nova's, were received by the initial proposal due date of October 4, 1999. AR, COS, at 3. A technical evaluation board (TEB) was tasked with the evaluation and rating of the first 10 subfactors under the technical expertise factor. A source selection board (SSB) rated the proposals under all remaining factors and subfactors (i.e., the remaining technical factors, past performance, proposed subcontracting effort, and price). The SSB report, contained in the Pre-Negotiation Business Clearance Memorandum, included excerpts from the TEB's written report indicating items identified for discussions. All proposals were found to be unacceptable but susceptible of being made acceptable. Id. The SSB recommended that discussions be held with all offerors. On November 30, the agency sent out its first discussion letters to offerors. The letter to Marathon concerning the past performance factor stated that "[n]one of the projects submitted by Marathon appear to be of the size, complexity of scope, and associated dredging amounts required by the solicitation." AR, encl. 7, at 3. Marathon responded in its revised proposal as follows: Although Marathon has not been awarded a project with the exact scope and dollar amount of [this] contract . . .