Dennis Cantrell, B-289169, December 19, 2001

B-289169 Dec 19, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Higher-priced proposal is unobjectionable where the agency reasonably determined that the awardee's significantly greater experience in the solicited work was worth the relatively modest price premium. Cantrell contends that the agency's selection decision was unreasonable. The RFP notified offerors that price was of approximately equal importance to the technical evaluation factors. The solicitation stated that the award "will be made to that offeror (1) whose proposal is technically acceptable and (2) [whose] technical/cost relationship is the most advantageous to the government.". Were submitted by the August 15 due date. Cantrell and Family Enterprises were as follows: Technical Factor Family Enterprises Dennis Cantrell Experience 29.3 20 Quality 38.7 37.7 Timeliness 29.3 27.7 Total 97.3 85.4 Agency Report. View Decision Dennis Cantrell, B-289169, December 19, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Dennis Cantrell protests the award of a contract to Family Enterprises, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. R8-03-01-05, issued by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, for reconstruction of a portion of the Bartram Trail in northern Georgia. Cantrell contends that the agency's selection decision was unreasonable. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued July 15, 2001, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for the reconstruction of a 13.5-mile portion of the Bartram Trail. The solicitation established three technical factors: experience (worth 30 percent), quality of service (worth 40 percent), and timeliness of performance (worth 30 percent). The RFP notified offerors that price was of approximately equal importance to the technical evaluation factors. The solicitation stated that the award "will be made to that offeror (1) whose proposal is technically acceptable and (2) [whose] technical/cost relationship is the most advantageous to the government." RFP Sec. M. Five proposals, including those of Mr. Cantrell and Family Enterprises, were submitted by the August 15 due date. Mr. Cantrell submitted the lowest-priced offer of $96,725.49 and Family Enterprises the second-lowest price of $102,767.50. The technical evaluation scores of the two highest rated proposals of Mr. Cantrell and Family Enterprises were as follows: Technical Factor Family Enterprises Dennis Cantrell Experience 29.3 20 Quality 38.7 37.7 Timeliness 29.3 27.7 Total 97.3 85.4 Agency Report, Tab 17, Technical Evaluation Score Record. The technical evaluation panel's written report to the contracting officer included the evaluation scores, scoring worksheets, strengths, and weaknesses of all five offerors. As indicated by the scores, the evaluation report found that the proposals of Family Enterprises and Mr. Cantrell were similarly strong with regard to both quality and timeliness, but that the proposals differed as to experience. The evaluation panel noted that Family Enterprises' experience consisted of "15 individual trail contracts with one of these being on this forest," while Mr. Cantrell's experience consisted of "one trail contract and several bridge contracts." /1/ Agency Report, Tab 16, Technical Evaluation Panel Report, at 1-2. In comparing the proposals of Family Enterprises and Mr. Cantrell, the contracting officer found that Family Enterprises' proposal enjoyed a substantial advantage over Mr. Cantrell's proposal under the experience factor. The contracting officer noted that notwithstanding the "exceptional quality on the work previously performed" by both offerors, "the depth of experience and knowledge offered by Family Enterprises is a significant advantage" that represents "real value to the Forest Service." The contracting officer determined that Family Enterprises' superior technical proposal outweighed the $6,042 price advantage of Mr. Cantrell's lower-rated proposal, and awarded the contract accordingly. Agency Report, Tab 15, Source Selection Decision, at 2. Following a debriefing, this protest followed. Mr. Cantrell protests the agency's award selection decision. The protester argues that given the close technical ranking of the offerors, the agency's decision to make award to a company whose price is several thousand dollars higher was improper and did not actually represent best value to the government. In a best-value acquisition, agencies are not required to make award on the basis of low cost or price; agencies may make price/technical tradeoffs, and the extent to which one is sacrificed for the other is governed only by the test of rationality and consistency with the stated evaluation criteria. KPMG Peat Marwick, L.L.P., B-271673, July 15, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 53 at 5. Here, in reaching her decision to select Family Enterprises for award, the contracting officer weighed the price and technical differences between the two proposals.