Sayed Hamid Behbehani & Sons, WLL, B-288818.6, September 9, 2002

B-288818.6 Sep 09, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Technical evaluation was reasonable where agency followed solicitation's evaluation criteria and record supports agency's finding that protester's technical proposal contained weaknesses attributable to lack of adequate detail. The successful contractor was expected to have the ability to manage various trades and engineering disciplines to perform multiple projects at multiple locations at the same time. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of two factors. The technical factor was divided into various subfactors and associated elements: management capability (organization. The technical subfactors were of equal weight and the technical factor was more important than price. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best overall value. View Decision Sayed Hamid Behbehani & Sons, WLL, B-288818.6, September 9, 2002 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Sayed Hamid Behbehani & Sons, WLL (SHBS) protests the award of a contract to Al Ghanim Combined Group under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA78-01-R-0006, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for design and construction services on projects in Kuwait. SHBS challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal and the source selection decision. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals for a job order contract (JOC) to provide rapid response for minor construction, renovation/rehabilitation, maintenance, and repair of existing buildings and structures, as well as construction of new facilities and/or additions to existing facilities at various sites in Kuwait. The successful contractor was expected to have the ability to manage various trades and engineering disciplines to perform multiple projects at multiple locations at the same time. The RFP anticipated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract, based on the issuance of task orders, for a base year with 4 option years. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of two factors, technical and price. The technical factor was divided into various subfactors and associated elements: management capability (organization, subcontracting, and key personnel); technical capability (engineering/design, quality control, and safety); experience documentation; and past performance documentation. The technical subfactors were of equal weight and the technical factor was more important than price. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best overall value. Twenty-two offerors, including SHBS and Al Ghanim, submitted proposals and, after an initial evaluation by a technical evaluation team, the agency awarded the contract, without discussions, to Al Ghanim. SHBS and two other offerors protested this award and the agency took corrective action, including the appointment of a Source Selection Authority (SSA) to conduct and document both an independent evaluation of all 22 proposals, and a comparative analysis to determine which of the offers represents the best value to the government. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1. Based on the proposed corrective action, we dismissed the protest as academic. Al Hamra Kuwait Co., et al., B-288818 et al., Oct. 9, 2001 (unpublished). In conducting the reevaluation, the SSA did not rely on the initial technical evaluation and did not conduct discussions with the offerors. Instead, the contracting officer, as SSA, had a single engineer evaluator review the technical proposals and provide her with an independent assessment of all 22 offerors' technical ability. Based on the engineer's evaluation and her own review of each proposal and comparative analysis, the SSA found four proposals, including SHBS's, marginally acceptable, and two, including Al Ghanim's, acceptable as submitted. In this regard, under the technical factor, the RFP provided for an assessment of the degree to which the proposal met the various requirements of each element and sub-element of the four subfactors. The SSA concluded as follows regarding SHBS's technical proposal: This offeror has submitted some good information on past performance, however, they fall short on the management and technical submission. The technical proposal is marginally acceptable. They failed to submit the requested information on management and technical sub-factors. I don't have the feeling they have a good understanding of the JOC concept. The data submitted was not specific as requested in the solicitation. The overall technical proposal is marginal as far as meeting the criteria to be submitted. They did not explain how rapid response designs will be accomplished and explain if they have adequate staffing for a multiple task order contract. Their pricing proposal is reasonable, complete and indicates minimal risk.