Chart Industries, Inc., B-288248, September 28, 2001

B-288248 Sep 28, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency's downgrading of protester's technical proposal is unobjectionable where the record establishes that the evaluation is reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. Chart contends that the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal was unreasonable. The evaluation factors were cost. The technical subfactors were: implementation and operation plan (including station design. The RFP also specified that offerors "should ensure that their [technical] proposals are clear. The total evaluated scores were then upwardly adjusted by a common factor. So that the highest score was 60 points. The technical panel noted that while Chart's technical proposal was very general and lacking in specifics. View Decision Chart Industries, Inc., B-288248, September 28, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Chart Industries, Inc. protests the award of a contract to NorthStar, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N1248-01-0007, issued by the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, for the construction of a natural gas fueling station at Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Chart contends that the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal was unreasonable. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued March 15, 2001 and amended April 24, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for the construction of a compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas fueling station, with four 1-year options for maintenance. The evaluation factors were cost, worth 40 points, and technical, worth 60 points. The technical subfactors were: implementation and operation plan (including station design, installation, start-up, operations, and maintenance), worth 30 points; experience of firm and key staff, worth 15 points; and past performance on similar contracts, worth 15 points. The RFP also specified that offerors "should ensure that their [technical] proposals are clear, concise, and fully address all of the evaluation factors," and that the technical proposals "must fully conform to the specifications/statement of work clearly defining an approach and methodology." RFP Sec. L.1. Four offerors, including Chart and NorthStar, responded to the RFP by the May 4 due date. Each member of the agency's technical panel assigned numerical ratings for each proposal under each of the technical evaluation factors. The total evaluated scores were then upwardly adjusted by a common factor, so that the highest score was 60 points. The contracting officer separately evaluated prices by assigning the 40 points available for price to the lowest-priced proposal and proportionately lower scores to higher-priced proposals. The following table shows the overall ranking of Chart's and NorthStar's proposals: Price (Score) Technical Total Chart $1,158,451 44.2 84.2 points (40) NorthStar $1,431,595 60.0 92.0 points (32) Agency Report, Tab 11, Memorandum of Negotiations, at 3. The technical panel noted that while Chart's technical proposal was very general and lacking in specifics, NorthStar's technical proposal was thoroughly detailed and accurately responded to the particulars of the RFP. The contracting officer awarded the contract to NorthStar based on a determination that NorthStar's superior technical proposal outweighed the associated price advantage of Chart's lower-rated proposal. After receiving a debriefing from the National Park Service, Chart filed this protest with our Office. Chart protests the agency's evaluation of its proposal and argues that, but for the agency's improper evaluation, its proposal would have been selected for award. /1/ In reviewing protests challenging an agency's evaluation of proposals, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency regarding the merits of proposals; rather, we will examine the agency's evaluation and selection decision to ensure that they are reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation factors. Citywide Managing Servs. of Port Wash., Inc., B-281287.12, B-281287.13, Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD Para. 6 at 10. The protester bears the burden of proving that an evaluation was unreasonable; mere disagreement with the agency does not render the evaluation unreasonable. Ogden Support Servs., Inc., B-270354.2, Oct. 29, 1996, 97-1 CPD Para. 135 at 3. As illustrated by the following examples, we find that the agency's evaluation was reasonable, given the evaluators' reasonable conclusions that Chart's proposal (in contrast to that of the awardee) lacked, in many instances, sufficient or accurate detail to justify a higher point score. /2/ For example, as noted, one of the technical evaluation subfactors set forth in the RFP was station design. This aspect of Chart's technical proposal consists primarily of a general summary of major components and includes one computerized site drawing.