A&D Fire Protection Inc., B-288852, December 12, 2001

B-288852 Dec 12, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Which was to consider both technical factors and price. Is sustained where the agency failed to consider the technically acceptable protester's lower proposed price. A&D contends that its low price was not considered in the award selection. The RFP was restricted to firms certified under the Small Business Administration's section 8(a) set-aside program and provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for the design and construction of columbarium niches at the National Cemetery in San Diego. Offerors were further informed that all technical factors combined were approximately equal in importance to price. Offerors were also informed that the agency intended to make award without conducting discussions. View Decision A&D Fire Protection Inc., B-288852, December 12, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION A&D Fire Protection Inc. protests the award of a contract to Stronghold Engineering, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 101-AC-0189, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for design and construction services at the National Cemetery, San Diego, California. A&D contends that its low price was not considered in the award selection. We sustain the protest. The RFP was restricted to firms certified under the Small Business Administration's section 8(a) set-aside program and provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for the design and construction of columbarium niches at the National Cemetery in San Diego, California. /1/ The solicitation stated that award would be made "on the basis of both cost and technical considerations most advantageous to the government." The RFP listed the following evaluation factors, in descending order of importance: (1) price, (2) construction management including experience, (3) past performance with projects of similar scale and scope, and (4) schedule. Offerors were further informed that all technical factors combined were approximately equal in importance to price. RFP at 5. Offerors were also informed that the agency intended to make award without conducting discussions. RFP at 00101-4. The VA received six proposals, including those of A&D and Stronghold, which were evaluated as follows: Offeror Overall Technical Price . Score . (of 100 maximum . points) A 73.6 $3,675,000 Stronghold 72.4 $3,398,124 B 72.4 $4,660,605 A&D 66.2 $3,250,000 C 56.4 $4,122,249 D 40.8 $3,563,063 Agency Report, Tab I, Technical Proposal Evaluation Memorandum (July 9, 2001), at 1; Tab J, Price Proposal Evaluation Memorandum (July 9, 2001), at 1. Under the construction management/experience technical factor (which the RFP stated had a weight of 50 points), the proposals of Stronghold and A&D received identical scores of 35.8 points. The VA noted that both firms proposed to use the same design firm, which had considerable experience in cemetery work with the VA. Neither firm had direct experience performing cemetery work for VA, but Stronghold's construction experience was found to more closely relate to cemetery construction than did A&D's. Agency Report, Tab M, Memorandum of Evaluation Team Leader (Oct. 16, 2001), at 1-2. Under the past performance factor (which had a weight of 25 points), the proposals of Stronghold and A&D received scores of 17.8 and 14.8 points, respectively. Stronghold's 3-point advantage reflected the evaluators' judgment that although each firm had demonstrated client satisfaction, Stronghold had provided "[s]everal highly innovative examples of past partnering and communication with both the client and the community" while A&D's "information presented . . . standard practices." Id. Under the scheduling factor (which had a weight of 25 points), the proposals of Stronghold and A&D received scores of 18.8 and 15.6 points respectively. Each firm demonstrated its understanding of the required schedule and the agency's needs. Stronghold's 3.2-point higher score reflected Stronghold's offer to accelerate the performance schedule. Id. The results of the technical evaluation were presented to the contracting officer with the team's recommendation that the proposals of A&D and offerors C and D be eliminated from further consideration on the basis of those firms' proposals' lower technical scores. The evaluation team also stated that the proposals of Stronghold and offerors A and B were technically equivalent, and recommended that these firms' proposals be retained in the competition. Agency Report, Tab I, Technical Proposal Evaluation Memorandum (July 9, 2001), at 2. Subsequently, the evaluation team leader reported to the contracting officer that Stronghold's proposal had offered the lowest overall price of the proposals retained in the competition, and recommended that award therefore be made to Stronghold. Agency Report, Tab K, Memorandum of Evaluation Team Leader (July 11, 2001), at 1.