R. L. Campbell Roofing Company, Inc., B-289868, May 10, 2002

B-289868 May 10, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Are unobjectionable where the agency reasonably determined that the protester's proposal reflected significant weaknesses in safety. Were unreasonable. The contractor will be required to furnish all labor. The RFP provided a blank "customer evaluation form" that was to be completed by three references. The initial proposals of Cram and Campbell were evaluated as marginal overall. Were included in the competitive range. Responses to the discussion questions and final revised proposals were received and evaluated. Cram's final revised proposal was evaluated by the Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) as acceptable under the technical qualifications. Campbell's final revised proposal was evaluated by the TEB as marginal under the technical qualifications factor. View Decision R. L. Campbell Roofing Company, Inc., B-289868, May 10, 2002 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION R. L. Campbell Roofing Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Cram Roofing Company, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62467-01-R-3156, issued by the Department of the Navy, for roofing repairs. Campbell argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals, and selection of Cram's higher-priced, higher-rated proposal for award, were unreasonable. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a base period of 1 year with three 1-year options. The contractor will be required to furnish all labor, materials, equipment, supervision, and transportation necessary to perform roofing repairs and roofing as directed by the agency at various Navy facilities in Alabama and Florida. The solicitation stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value to the agency, with total evaluated price and technical merit being equal in importance. With regard to the evaluation of technical merit, the RFP listed the following technical evaluation factors, and stated that they would be considered equal in importance: technical qualifications, past performance, scheduling, and small business subcontracting plan. The RFP included detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals. Among other things, the solicitation specified that in response to the technical qualifications factor proposals should "[p]rovide qualifications of the Superintendent and Quality Control Manager to support this project," including "a list of three of the most significant construction projects" that these personnel worked on and the relevant points of contact. RFP Sec. 00202 at 3. With regard to the past performance evaluation factor, the RFP provided a blank "customer evaluation form" that was to be completed by three references, returned to the offeror, and then attached to the offeror's proposal. The solicitation informed offerors that because the agency would be "attempting to evaluate the past performance of the on site construction team submitted by the proposer," the three references (and completed customer evaluation forms) should, to the extent possible, be for the same projects described under the technical qualifications factor. Id. at 4. The agency received nine proposals by the RFP's closing date. The initial proposals of Cram and Campbell were evaluated as marginal overall, at proposed prices of $20,419,968 and $19,334,100, respectively. /1/ Agency Report (AR), exh. 5, Source Selection Board (SSB) Report, Nov. 5, 2001, at 2. Three proposals, including those submitted by Cram and Campbell, were included in the competitive range. Id. The agency initiated discussions with the competitive range offerors through letters that informed the offerors of the specific weaknesses and deficiencies in their respective proposals, and requested responses. The agency posed questions to Campbell regarding the length and type of experience of its proposed quality control manager, and asked a number of questions regarding quality and safety issues and problems on delivery orders for roofing services that Campbell had performed for the agency under another contract. AR, exhs. 10-11, Agency Letters to Cram and Campbell (Nov. 6, 2001). Responses to the discussion questions and final revised proposals were received and evaluated. Cram's final revised proposal was evaluated by the Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) as acceptable under the technical qualifications, scheduling, and small business subcontracting factors, exceptional under the past performance factor, and acceptable overall, at a proposed price of $23,832,868. Campbell's final revised proposal was evaluated by the TEB as marginal under the technical qualifications factor, acceptable under the past performance, scheduling, and small business subcontracting factors, and marginal overall, at a proposed price of $19,334,100. AR, exhs.