McDonald Construction Services, Inc., B-285980; B-285980.2, October 25, 2000

McDonald Construction Services, Inc., B-285980; B-285980.2, October 25, 2000 TITLE: McDonald Construction Services, Inc., B-285980; B-285980.2, October 25, 2000 BNUMBER: B-285980; B-285980.2 DATE: October 25, 2000 ********************************************************************** McDonald Construction Services, Inc., B-285980; B-285980.2, October 25, 2000 Decision Matter of: McDonald Construction Services, Inc. File: B-285980; B-285980.2 Date: October 25, 2000 Thomas E. Abernathy IV, Esq., Smith, Currie & Hancock, for the protester. Robert A. Emmanuel, Esq., Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon, for Greenhut Construction Services, Inc., the intervenor. Thomas W. Burt, Esq., and Larry E. Beall, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester's contention that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal because it was downgraded under three separate evaluation areas for the same deficiency is denied, where the record shows that the agency evaluated the protester's proposal in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation, the criteria assessed separate aspects of the proposals, and the deficiencies noted reasonably related to all three evaluation areas at issue. DECISION McDonald Construction Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Greenhut Construction Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA01-00-R-0009, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the construction of a hospital central energy plant at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. McDonald challenges the evaluation of its proposal and contends that the agency improperly conducted discussions with the awardee, while it failed to conduct similar discussions with McDonald. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on March 1, 2000, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for the construction of the required plant, which generally consists of a steel frame building with slab on grade floor and concrete foundation. The building is to be a free-standing central energy facility housing the existing chiller and boiler assets which will be relocated from the main hospital to the new plant. Offerors were required to submit fixed prices for the basic requirement, for each of four option items, and a total price. Offerors were instructed to submit proposals in two separate volumes--performance capability (volume I), and "pro forma" requirements (volume II). The RFP contained detailed instructions on the type of information required to be included in each volume. Section 00120 of the RFP explained that a source selection evaluation board (SSEB) would evaluate volume I of the proposals in the areas listed below. Volume II, which was to include such items as contractor representations and certifications, bonds, standard form 1442, the schedule, and subcontracting plan, was to be evaluated separately on a "go or no-go" basis; the financial statement, which was also to be included in volume II, was not to be evaluated. Price was not to be numerically scored but was to be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. The RFP stated that the technical area (i.e., performance capability) and price were equal in importance. In addition, the RFP stated that the government may make award without discussions, and cautioned offerors to provide their best terms in the initial proposals. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was deemed most advantageous to the government. The RFP listed the following subfactors for evaluating volume I and their relative importance (maximum point values for each subfactor shown were not provided in the RFP but were set out in the instructions provided to the SSEB). Factor/Subfactor Value Vol. I--Perf. Capability Organization 200 Specific Personnel 125 Specialized Experience 200 on Similar Type of Work Preliminary Quality 100 Control Plans Preliminary Project 60 Schedules Past Perf. on 40 Utilization of Small Bus. Concerns Safety Program 75 Total Points 800 Nine firms submitted proposals by the time set on June 8 for receipt of initial proposals, ranging in total price from McDonald's low price of $5,565,007 to $7,602,895; Greenhut submitted the second lowest total price. As for technical scores, the protester's proposal was ranked seventh while Greenhut's proposal was ranked first.