PflowIndustries, Inc.�, B-290073;B-290073.2, May 20, 2002�

PflowIndustries, Inc.�, B-290073;B-290073.2, May 20, 2002� TITLE: PflowIndustries, Inc.�, B-290073;B-290073.2, May 20, 2002� BNUMBER: B-290073;B-290073.2 DATE: May 20, 2002� ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: PflowIndustries, Inc. File: B-289970 Date: May 20, 2002 TomArchie for the protester. WilliamJ. Spriggs, Esq., Spriggs & Hollingsworth, for ACRA, Inc., an intervenor. CraigD. Haughtelin, Esq., Naval Supply Systems Command, for the agency. PaulE. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO,participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging technical evaluation of proposals is deniedwhere agency reasonably found awardee's proposal entitled to higher ratingsthan protester's based on level of detail found in the proposals. 2. Pastperformance evaluation rating of satisfactory was reasonable, and did notrequire discussions, where it reasonably reflected agency's experience withprotester's work on prior projects. DECISION Pflow Industries, Inc.protests the award of a contract to ACRA, Inc. under request for quotations(RFQ) No. N00406-01-T-1181, issued by the Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP)for design and installation of a vertical reciprocating conveyor (VRC) at thePuget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS), Bremerton, Washington. Pflow challenges the agency's evaluation ofits and ACRA's proposals. We deny the protest. The RFQ sought proposals to design, fabricate, install,and test an 8,000-pound capacity VRC for dry dock No. 2 at PSNS. The VRC is used to transport material andequipment to and from the bottom of the dry dock in support of repair andoverhaul of naval warships. The VRC wasto be a commercially available system, modified to fit its intendedenvironment, and was to be designed such that it could be disassembled andstored/attached to a nearby building. The RFQ contemplated award of a fixed-price contract. Proposals were evaluated on the basis of threefactors: technical, past performance,and price. The technical and pastperformance factors were of approximately equal importance, and price slightlyless important. Under the technicalfactor, the RFQ called for proposals to include information on 11 areas,including design/engineering/production capabilities, safety and environmentalprotection, and subcontractors. RFQat 39-41. With regard to pastperformance, proposals were to include information on up to five of thecontractor's (three of any subcontractor's) most recently completed federal,state, or local government, or commercial contracts. Id. at 42. Awardwas to be made to the firm whose offer provided the best value to thegovernment. Pflow and ACRA submitted the only proposals. The technical evaluators found ACRA'sproposal sufficient as submitted, but that Pflow's required discussions toobtain additional information. Asrevised following discussions, both proposals were rated overall satisfactoryunder the technical and past performance factors. ACRA's price ($951,669), was slightly higher than Pflow's($948,810). In making the award decision, the contracting officerconsidered that, although the proposals received the same overall satisfactoryrating, ACRA's was superior to Pflow's, given ACRA's outstanding ratings underthe design/engineering/production capabilities and subcontractor subfactors(compared to Pflow's satisfactory ratings), and Pflow's marginal rating underthe environmental subfactor (compared to ACRA's satisfactory rating). The contracting officer concluded thatACRA's proposal overall was technically superior to, and represented a lowerrisk than, Pflow's, and made award to ACRA despite its higher price. Agency Report (AR), Tab I, at 6. After receiving notice of the award and adebriefing, Pflow filed this protest. Pflow challenges the technical and past performanceevaluations on numerous grounds. Inreviewing a protest against a procuring agency's proposal evaluation, our roleis limited to ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent withthe terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. Nat'l Toxicology Labs., Inc.,B-281074.2, Jan. 11, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 5 at 3. We have reviewed all of Pflow's arguments and find that none hasmerit. We discuss the central argumentsbelow. PFLOW'S PROPOSAL Pflow argues that the agency unreasonably rated itsproposal marginal under the safety/environmental protection subfactor. In this regard, the RFQ required adescription of an offeror's ?experience with on-site environmental protectionprograms in compliance with state and federal regulations related toenvironmental awareness, hazardous material and hazardous waste management,spill prevention, and water and air pollution control.? RFP at 41, para. E.