Neeser Construction, Inc./Allied Builders System,, B-285903, October 25, 2000

B-285903 Oct 25, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Past performance were significantly more important than cost. Were to be significantly more important than price. Were as follows: SUBFACTOR NEESER NEESER JORDAN JORDAN (Technical) (Risk) (Technical) (Risk) Experience/ Yellow/ Moderate Green/ Low Capabilities Marginal Acceptable Architectural Yellow/ High Green/ Moderate Concepts Marginal Acceptable Project Yellow/ High Green/ Low Management Marginal Acceptable Site Concepts Red/ High Green/ Low Unacceptable Acceptable Building Systems Yellow/ Moderate Green/ Low Marginal Acceptable Equipment Yellow/ Moderate Green/ Low Marginal Acceptable AR tab 24. Jordan were rated very good/significant confidence. Neeser's offered price of [deleted] was low and C.F. View Decision Matter of: Neeser Construction, Inc./Allied Builders System, A Joint Venture File: B-285903 Date: October 25, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Neeser Construction, Inc./Allied Builders System, A Joint Venture protests the award of a contract to C.F. Jordan under request for proposals (RFP) No. F41689-00-R-0801, issued by the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) for the design and construction of a combined commissary/exchange to be built at Naval Station Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. /1/ The protester primarily challenges the evaluation of its proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, as amended, requested proposals for the design and construction of a new community shopping center consisting of a commissary, exchange, mall, and food court, with all the associated site work, including utilities, roads, walks, and landscaping. The project also includes the demolition and removal of the existing commissary/exchange facilities and phased construction, because the site cannot accommodate construction of the entire shopping center at one time RFP, Amend. No. 0002, Agency Report (AR) tab 8 (hereinafter RFP), at 9; AR tab 11, Statement of Work (SOW), Sec. 1.1-1.1, at 10. The solicitation provided for award of a fixed-price contract based on a best value evaluation using three equally weighted technical evaluation factors--proposal risk, past performance, and technical mission capability--which, combined, were to be significantly more important than price. RFP Sec. M-900-1.2, at 67. The solicitation listed six technical mission capability subfactors in descending order of importance--experience and capabilities, architectural concepts, project management, site concepts, building systems, and equipment--under which proposals would receive a color/adjective rating of blue/exceptional, green/acceptable, yellow/marginal, or red/unacceptable and a proposal risk rating of either low, moderate, or high. RFP Secs. M-900-2.2.A, B, and M-900-2.3, at 67-68 and 71. The agency received seven offers. After evaluation by the technical evaluation team (TET), Neeser's proposal received the lowest, and C.F. Jordan's the second highest, ratings under the technical mission capability factor; these ratings, and the proposal risk ratings, were as follows: SUBFACTOR NEESER NEESER JORDAN JORDAN (Technical) (Risk) (Technical) (Risk) Experience/ Yellow/ Moderate Green/ Low Capabilities Marginal Acceptable Architectural Yellow/ High Green/ Moderate Concepts Marginal Acceptable Project Yellow/ High Green/ Low Management Marginal Acceptable Site Concepts Red/ High Green/ Low Unacceptable Acceptable Building Systems Yellow/ Moderate Green/ Low Marginal Acceptable Equipment Yellow/ Moderate Green/ Low Marginal Acceptable AR tab 24, Technical Evaluation Summary (TES), Proposals Nos. 4 and 6, at 11-19; AR tab 15, Proposal Risk Assessment (PRA), at 7. Under the past performance factor, both Neeser and C.F. Jordan were rated very good/significant confidence. Neeser's offered price of [deleted] was low and C.F. Jordan's price of $49,990,000 was second low. AR tab 14, Bid Abstract, at 2. The source selection authority (SSA) determined that award to C.F. Jordan represented the best value to the government based on the firm's second highest technical mission capability rating, low risk rating, very good past performance rating, and second lowest offered price. Additionally, the SSA considered that C.F. Jordan's design team had successfully designed other military commissary and exchange projects, the firm proposed an "attractive" exterior architectural treatment that invoked Pacific architectural elements in the design, and the firm's proposal was acceptable without discussions. While another offeror's proposal, not at issue here, was evaluated as the best technically, its offered price of [deleted] million was the highest offered; the SSA determined that the proposal's technical advantages were not worth the [deleted] million price premium over C.F. Jordan's proposal. Conversely, the SSA determined that Neeser's price advantage over C.F.