C. Lawrence Construction Company, Inc., B-287066, March 30, 2001

B-287066 Mar 30, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The estimated value of the project was between $5 and $10 million. Which were weighted equally. Past performance was to be evaluated as a performance risk assessment of the offeror's "specialized experience information" determined by considering the quality of the offeror's performance on recent relevant projects of similar scope and magnitude to the RFP work. "Relevant" contracts are construction projects that are similar in scope and magnitude ($5 . The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of Offeror's experience deemed relevant to the requirements of this Solicitation. The Government will use information submitted by the Offeror. Each proposal was to receive an overall risk rating. View Decision Matter of: C. Lawrence Construction Company, Inc. File: B-287066 Date: March 30, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION C. Lawrence Construction Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Lord & Son Construction, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA01-01-R-0003, issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, for construction work. Lawrence contends that the Corps unreasonably evaluated its past performance. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued October 13, 2000, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to build a 24,000 square foot F-22 aircraft flight simulator and academic training facility at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. The RFP required construction of a single story steel frame building on spread footings with a concrete masonry unit exterior, a standing-seam metal roof, and interior rooms with limited raised flooring and computer room cooling. The estimated value of the project was between $5 and $10 million. The RFP provided for award considering past performance and price, which were weighted equally. Past performance was to be evaluated as a performance risk assessment of the offeror's "specialized experience information" determined by considering the quality of the offeror's performance on recent relevant projects of similar scope and magnitude to the RFP work. RFP Sec. 00120 at 2.2.2.1.1. For this purpose, the RFP instructions stated: (a) SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE ON SIMILAR TYPE WORK: Provide a list of at least five (5), but no more than ten (10), of the most relevant contracts performed for Government or commercial customers within the last 3 years. "Relevant" contracts are construction projects that are similar in scope and magnitude ($5 -- 7 million) to this project, such as, Office/Administrative, Instructional, and Light Commercial type facilities. . . . The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of Offeror's experience deemed relevant to the requirements of this Solicitation. The Government will use information submitted by the Offeror, as well as other sources, such as other Government agencies or commercial sources, to assess experience. RFP Sec. 00110 at 2.1.1(a). /1/ Based on the agency's assessment of the quality of each offeror's past performance on its listed projects, each proposal was to receive an overall risk rating. The rating categories were unsatisfactory/no confidence, marginal/little confidence, neutral/unknown confidence, satisfactory/confidence, very good/significant confidence, and exceptional/high confidence. RFP Sec. 00120 at 2.2.2.1.4. The RFP also provided for evaluating the fairness and reasonableness of the offerors' prices. On November 28, the Corps received 13 proposals in response to the RFP. A technical evaluation team (TET) eliminated the lowest-priced proposal for failing to submit specialized experience information, but evaluated the past performance of the next seven lowest-priced proposals, including Lawrence's, whose proposed $5,650,889 price was now the lowest, and Lord & Son's proposal, which offered the next lowest price of $5,852,100. The TET assigned Lawrence's past performance a satisfactory/confidence risk rating. The TET found Lawrence's proposal contained a "deficiency" because it listed only three relevant projects performed by Lawrence, instead of the requested five projects similar to scope and magnitude (that is, projects valued between $5 and $7 million). In this regard, the TET found that of the four projects listed by Lawrence, which ranged from $2 to $4 million in value, two were combined to satisfy the $5 million threshold. The TET also concluded that only one of the listed projects could be considered similar and/or relevant to the RFP project (even though that project did not satisfy the $5 million threshold), and that the other listed projects were not "very relevant to the current project," but were "primarily warehouses apparently with incidental offices." See Agency Report, Tab D, Consensus Evaluation Sheet; Tab E, Memorandum For Record, at 2.