Coastal Drilling, Inc., B-285085.3, July 20, 2000

B-285085.3 Jul 20, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Where record establishes that protester's proposal was reasonably evaluated as containing deficiencies that indicated protester's inability to satisfy specified material solicitation requirements. Coastal primarily argues that the agency's evaluation of Coastal's proposal was unreasonable because the agency improperly concluded that Coastal's proposed use of its Geomation 2380 Telemetry Unit did not meet the RFP requirement for real-time computer monitoring. Balanced stabilized grouts were to be designed and tested to reduce grouting processes and procedures to be refined as work progressed to achieve a residual permeability specified in "Lugeons." /1/ RFP at 1. Real-time computer monitoring with visual display of foundation permeabilities using electronic sensing of grouting parameters to determine these permeabilities was required. View Decision Matter of: Coastal Drilling, Inc. File: B-285085.3 Date: July 20, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Coastal Drilling, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Advanced Construction Techniques, Ltd. (ACT) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACW27-00-R-0006, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers for seepage remediation at Patoka Lake, Indiana. Coastal primarily argues that the agency's evaluation of Coastal's proposal was unreasonable because the agency improperly concluded that Coastal's proposed use of its Geomation 2380 Telemetry Unit did not meet the RFP requirement for real-time computer monitoring. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on January 20, 2000, sought proposals for the construction of a specified balanced stabilized grouting based seepage cutoff for Patoka Lake. RFP Sec. 00130, Para. 1. Balanced stabilized grouts were to be designed and tested to reduce grouting processes and procedures to be refined as work progressed to achieve a residual permeability specified in "Lugeons." /1/ RFP at 1. Real-time computer monitoring with visual display of foundation permeabilities using electronic sensing of grouting parameters to determine these permeabilities was required. Id. The solicitation provided for the award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal offered the most advantage to the government and cautioned that award could be made on the basis of initial offers without discussions. RFP Sec. 00130, Para. 2.6. The solicitation provided that all evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, were approximately equal to price and listed the following five evaluation factors which were to be point scored, in descending order of importance: technical approach, experience, management plan, equipment and materials, and safety. RFP Sec. 00130, Paras. 3, 4. Price was not to be point scored. RFP Sec. 00130, Para. 2.5. The agency received eight proposals by the March 1 closing date. All eight proposals were initially reviewed by a proposal compliance review team to ensure that they were in conformance with the RFP requirements. The seven-member evaluation board then evaluated the proposals by initially crediting the proposals with half the total points available for each sub-factor to reflect that the proposals were in conformance with the solicitation. If the board determined that a proposal exceeded the minimum requirements, the proposal was awarded additional points under the applicable sub-factor. Points were to be deducted where the board determined that a proposal did not meet the minimum requirements specified in the RFP. Agency Report, Tab 6, Evaluation Board Memorandum, at 1-2. The evaluation board recorded its consensus scores and the comments for the various evaluation factors and sub-factors involved on the scoring sheets. The evaluation board point scoring of Coastal's and ACT's proposals at the factor level (with maximum available points in parentheses) was as follows: Coastal ACT Technical Approach (40,000) 14,000 37,000 Experience (30,000) 15,500 26,000 Management (15,000) 5,500 13,000 Equipment & Materials (10,000) 6,500 8,000 Safety (5,000) 3,000 2,500 Total Points (100,000) 44,500 86,500 Agency Report, Tab 6, Evaluation Board Memorandum, at 2. The total prices proposed by these offerors were: Coastal $1,329,105 ACT $1,594,205 Id. at 12. In performing its detailed evaluation, the evaluation board found that Coastal's proposal, which received the lowest point score of the eight proposals, did not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Specifically, the board determined that Coastal's proposal did not demonstrate the technical approach, experience, and management capabilities required to successfully perform the work, and the board recommended elimination of Coastal's proposal from further consideration for failing to satisfy the minimum RFP requirements. Id.