Hedgecock Electric, Inc., B-285655, September 8, 2000

B-285655 Sep 08, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency's downgrading of protester's proposal under technical requirements factor (safety control procedures subfactor) was reasonable where proposal did not demonstrate familiarity with safety manual listed in solicitation. Downgrading of proposal under small business subcontracting effort factor was reasonable where solicitation specifically instructed offerors to state their subcontracting goals. Higher technically rated proposal was reasonable where solicitation permitted selection of other than the lowest-priced proposal and agency specifically determined that. Hedgecock's proposal was lowest priced and received an overall rating of acceptable. Webb's proposal was the second lowest priced (6.55 percent higher priced than Hedgecock's). View Decision Matter of: Hedgecock Electric, Inc. File: B-285655 Date: September 8, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Hedgecock Electric, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Webb Electric Company of North Florida, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68950-99-R-0199, issued by the Department of the Navy for the construction of primary and secondary duct banks, pad mounted transformers, pad mounted switchgear, primary and secondary cable, secondary switch boards and incidental related site work at the Naval Training Center in Great Lakes, Illinois. Hedgecock argues that the Navy improperly evaluated its proposal and performed an irrational price/technical tradeoff. /1/ We deny the protest. The solicitation provided for a best-value analysis based on an evaluation of the following factors (and subfactors): past performance and relevant project experience; technical requirements (project organization and personnel, management control system, quality control system, and safety control procedures); small business subcontracting effort, and price. The solicitation further provided that the technical factors combined would be considered approximately equal to price in the award decision, and that the agency intended to make award on the basis of initial proposals. Six offerors responded to the solicitation. A technical evaluation board (TEB) assigned the technical proposals a rating under each factor and subfactor, and an overall rating (highly acceptable, acceptable, marginal or unacceptable). Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2. Hedgecock's proposal was lowest priced and received an overall rating of acceptable, with ratings of highly acceptable under past performance/relevant project experience, and marginal under technical requirements and small business subcontracting effort. TEB Report at 1. Webb's proposal was the second lowest priced (6.55 percent higher priced than Hedgecock's), and received an overall rating of highly acceptable, with ratings of highly acceptable for both past performance/relevant project experience and technical requirements, and acceptable for small business subcontracting effort. Id. Following the evaluation, the source selection board (SSB) performed a price/technical tradeoff and selected Webb for award. Source Selection (SS) Report at 3. Hedgecock protests that the Navy improperly rated its proposal marginal under the technical requirements factor based on the safety control procedures subfactor. Specifically, Hedgecock asserts that, despite its experienced management team and good safety record, its proposal was downgraded because it did not demonstrate that Hedgecock was well versed with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Safety Manual EM 385-1-1. Hedgecock asserts that this downgrading was unwarranted, since every experienced contractor in electrical distribution systems is well versed in this safety manual. The evaluation of proposals is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency; our Office will question an evaluation only where it lacks a reasonable basis or conflicts with the stated evaluation criteria for award. Stratus Sys., Inc., B-281645, Feb. 24, 1999, 99-1 CPD Para. 67 at 3. The evaluation of Hedgecock's proposal under the technical requirement factor was reasonable and consistent with the RFP. The RFP specifically advised with respect to the safety control procedures subfactor that offerors should focus on the steps that will promote safety during construction. RFP at 5. The RFP also specifically indicated that publication EM 385-1-1 formed part of the specification. Id., Sec. 01450, at 1. This being the case, it was entirely reasonable for the Navy to consider whether an offeror demonstrated familiarity with this publication in assessing the offeror's proposal under the safety control procedures subfactor. The fact that Hedgecock claims it and other experienced electrical distribution contractors are familiar with this publication is not a basis for finding the evaluation unreasonable.