ACC Construction Co., Inc., B-288934, November 21, 2001

B-288934 Nov 21, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest is denied where the agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Where the solicitation provided that the combination of technical evaluation factors was significantly more important than price. The consensus adjectival ratings were outstanding. Risk ratings were high. Low/moderate risk) was ranked fourth overall and Caddell's proposal (rated outstanding. Low risk) was ranked first overall. Were valued at approximately $24 million and approximately $39 million. 000) was approximately 3.8 percent higher than ACC's price. Which provided that the combination of technical evaluation factors was significantly more important than price. View Decision ACC Construction Co., Inc., B-288934, November 21, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION ACC Construction Co., Inc. protests the award of a contract to Caddell Construction Co., Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA21-01-R-0043, issued by the Department of the Army, United States Army Corps of Engineers, to construct the Separate Battalions Barracks Complex, Phase I, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. ACC, which submitted the low-priced proposal, challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal and the agency's decision to award to a firm submitting a higher technically rated, higher-priced proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on June 21, 2001, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, considering technical evaluation factors (past performance, experience, and management effectiveness) and price. The RFP provided that the technical evaluation factors, when combined, would be considered significantly more important than price, and only as proposals became more equal in technical merit would price become the determining factor for award. RFP at 8. The RFP advised that since the agency intended to evaluate proposals and award a contract without conducting discussions, an offeror's initial proposal should contain the firm's best terms from a technical and price standpoint. RFP at 17. Five firms, including ACC and Caddell, submitted initial technical and price proposals by the closing time on August 14. Each member of the agency's source selection evaluation board (SSEB) individually evaluated each technical proposal submitted; the SSEB then met as a group and assigned an overall consensus rating to each technical proposal. (According to the agency's source selection plan, the consensus adjectival ratings were outstanding, above average, satisfactory, marginal and unsatisfactory; risk ratings were high, moderate, and low.) At this time, without factoring in price, ACC's technical proposal (rated satisfactory, low/moderate risk) was ranked fourth overall and Caddell's proposal (rated outstanding, low risk) was ranked first overall. Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, SSEB Evaluation Memorandum, at 2. More specifically, and as relevant here, ACC proposed a project manager in accordance with the requirements of the RFP, but the SSEB viewed as a weakness ACC's failure to dedicate this individual as an on-site project manager. In addition, while ACC provided an extensive list of projects performed over the last 5 years--its two most expensive projects involved multi-building barracks renewal and barracks replacement at Fort Benning, Georgia, and were valued at approximately $24 million and approximately $39 million--the SSEB viewed as a weakness ACC's lack of large scope/size construction projects similar to the approximate $60 million project requirements contemplated by this RFP. AR, Tab 8, ACC Technical Evaluation, at 1-3. In contrast, Caddell proposed an on-site project manager, which the SSEB viewed as a proposal strength. Moreover, the SSEB viewed as a strength Caddell's experience in constructing similar multi-building facilities, for example, barracks at Fort Bragg, federal penitentiaries in Texas, Louisiana, and Kentucky, and a Veterans Affairs medical center in Tennessee; these projects individually ranged in value from approximately $48 million to approximately $120 million. AR, Tab 8, Caddell Technical Evaluation, at 1-3. After evaluating technical proposals, and in order to establish final overall rankings, the SSEB then considered each offeror's proposed price. ACC submitted the low price ($60,752,239); Caddell's price ($63,064,000) was approximately 3.8 percent higher than ACC's price. Because ACC submitted the low price, its proposal received a final ranking of second overall. /1/ Caddell's technically superior, higher-priced proposal received a final ranking of first overall. AR, Tab 8, SSEB Evaluation Memorandum, at 2-3.