Blue Rock Structures, Inc., B-287960.2; B-287960.3, October 10, 2001

Blue Rock Structures, Inc., B-287960.2; B-287960.3, October 10, 2001 TITLE: Blue Rock Structures, Inc., B-287960.2; B-287960.3, October 10, 2001 BNUMBER: B-287960.2; B-287960.3 DATE: October 10, 2001 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Blue Rock Structures, Inc. File: B-287960.2; B-287960.3 Date: October 10, 2001 Hubert J. Bell, Jr., Esq., and Sarah E. Carson, Esq., Smith, Currie & Hancock, for the protester. Neil S. Lowenstein, Esq., James R. Harvey III, Esq., and William E. Franczek, Esq., Vandeventer Black, for Chianelli Building Corporation, the intervenor. Vicki E. O'Keefe, Esq., Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of agency's evaluation of protester's proposal and award determination is denied where the record demonstrates that the evaluation and source selection were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation factors for award. DECISION Blue Rock Structures, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Chianelli Building Corporation, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62470-99-R-9152, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the construction of an Amphibious Operations Maintenance/Storage Complex at the Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Blue Rock challenges the agency's reevaluation of its proposal and the agency's affirmation of the award to Chianelli. [1] The protester, a newly-formed firm, challenges the agency's failure to credit the firm's proposal under the past performance and corporate experience evaluation factors for the experience of its principals while employed by other firms. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on March 9, 2001, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for the construction of four buildings; the contractor was to provide, among other things, all labor, materials, and equipment to perform the work. RFP at 7. The RFP listed the following equally-weighted technical evaluation factors which, combined, were equal in importance to price: past performance of the prime contractor; corporate experience of the prime contractor; small business subcontracting effort; quality control and key personnel of the prime contractor (where the key personnel subfactor was to be given less weight than the quality control subfactor of this combined factor); and proposed schedule. Id. at 63-66. Offerors were advised that the award determination would be based upon the proposal offering the best value to the government, and that the offeror submitting the lowest price would not necessarily receive the award. Id. at 63. For evaluation of past performance, offerors were to provide narratives for five construction projects valued over $5 million. Offerors were advised that, separate from any responsibility determination, the agency intended to evaluate the offeror's technical proposal for past performance experience to assess the firm's relative capability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP; more weight was to be given to past performance on similar projects. Id. at 64. For evaluation under the corporate experience factor, each offeror was instructed to provide a list of relevant construction projects valued over $5 million and performed "by your firm" within the past 5 years. Id. at 65. Eight proposals were received by the amended May 7 closing date. The protester's proposal offered the lowest price (at $8,292,768) and was rated sixth for technical merit; the awardee's proposal offered the second lowest price (at $8,561,100) and was rated third technically. [2] Blue Rock's proposal remained sixth in line for technical merit after the agency's reevaluation of that proposal. Considering the 3-percent price differential between the Blue Rock proposal--which the agency considered to present substantial performance risk because Blue Rock is a newly-formed firm with no corporate experience or past performance history--and the higher-rated, lower-risk Chianelli proposal, the agency decided that the slight cost premium involved in an award to Chianelli was warranted. This protest followed. Blue Rock first protests the evaluation of its proposal under the corporate experience factor.