Gulf Group, Inc., B-287697; B-287697.2, July 24, 2001

Gulf Group, Inc., B-287697; B-287697.2, July 24, 2001 TITLE: Gulf Group, Inc., B-287697; B-287697.2, July 24, 2001 BNUMBER: B-287697; B-287697.2 DATE: July 24, 2001 ********************************************************************** Gulf Group, Inc., B-287697; B-287697.2, July 24, 2001 Decision Matter of: Gulf Group, Inc. File: B-287697; B-287697.2 Date: July 24, 2001 Patricia A. Snyder, Esq., and Thomas E. Abernathy, Esq., Smith, Currie & Hancock, for the protester. Joseph A. Gonzales, Esq., and Larry Beall, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and John W. Klein, Esq., and Kenneth W. Dodds, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency improperly applied undisclosed evaluation factor regarding specific experience of offerors is denied; agency properly may consider specific experience where, as here, solicitation provides for evaluation of experience. 2. Agency reasonably considered past performance reference in evaluating protester's proposal, even though protester claims the reference mistakenly rated its performance too low, where nothing on the face of the reference rating gave agency reason to look behind it. DECISION Gulf Group, Inc. protests the award of a contract to ABC Landclearing & Development/Tri-State Design and Construction, Inc. (ABC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACW01-00-R-0030, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on a competitive section 8(a) basis for dredge material disposal area management and levee maintenance. Gulf principally challenges the technical evaluation. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for award of a contract on an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) basis for all rental equipment, operators, supplies, materials, labor, and transportation necessary to perform maintenance and rehabilitation of approximately 18 dredge material disposal sites and levee maintenance along 14 miles of levee in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. Performance was to include disposal area work (raising dikes, new area construction, grading material, and ditching), levee maintenance (mowing, fertilizing, ditching, vegetation control, excavation, grading and filling), and dredging (removing shoaled material and placement on adjacent beach). RFP sect. 952.000-4214. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year, with 4 option years. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of price and performance, with performance evaluated under two equal subfactors, management capability/effectiveness and past performance. RFP sect. 0120.6.1. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value based on a performance/price trade-off in which the performance factor was significantly more important than price. Id. Seven offerors, including Gulf and ABC (the incumbent), submitted proposals. After an initial evaluation, five offerors' proposals were included in the competitive range, and the agency conducted discussions with these firms. Gulf and ABC submitted discussion question responses and final proposal revisions (FPR). The source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated the initial offers, supplemental information, and FPRs in reaching the following final evaluation results: Offeror Performance Rating Price Gulf Satisfactory $12,124,250 ABC Very Good $12,711,375 Offeror 3 Very Good $17,663,175 Offeror 4 Satisfactory $17,245,157 Offeror 5 Very Good $17,097,001 The contracting officer independently assessed the proposals and reviewed the SSEB's award recommendation. He noted Gulf's lower price, but specifically found that "ABC's past performance proposal illustrated considerably more relevant past performance and experience as it relate[d] to the instant contract requirements." He concluded that this made ABC's proposal the best value, and made award to the firm. Agency Report (AR), Tab P, at para. 11. After receiving a debriefing, Gulf filed this protest. SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE Gulf asserts that the evaluation is flawed because the SSEB improperly applied an undisclosed evaluation factor. Specifically, Gulf contends that it was improper to consider Gulf's lack of specific experience in ID/IQ task order contracts covering disposal area maintenance. Gulf claims that, had it known of this specific factor, it would have submitted additional examples of its past performance in dredging and in ID/IQ contracts. This argument is without merit. Where, as here, experience is to be evaluated, agencies may consider an offeror's experience in the specific area that is the subject of the procurement. See Wyle Labs., B-239671, Sept. 19, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 231. That is what the agency did here.