Brickwood Contractors, Inc.

B-290305 Jul 08, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a Naval Facilities Engineering Command contract award for upgrades and repairs to fuel systems, contending that the Command improperly determined that is its proposal was unacceptable. GAO held that the Command reasonably evaluated the protester's proposal as unacceptable because it failed to comply with solicitation requirements under three of four non-price evaluation factors. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Brickwood Contractors, Inc., B-290305, July 8, 2002 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Brickwood Contractors, Inc. protests the award of contract No. N62467-02-C-8805 to Roy F. Weston, Inc. by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command. The contract was awarded pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. N62467-01-R-8828 to perform upgrades and repairs to certain fuel systems at the Naval Air Station in Fort Worth, Texas. Brickwood protests that the agency improperly evaluated Brickwood's proposal as being unacceptable. We deny the protest. The Navy issued the RFP on September 29, 2001, seeking proposals to perform tasks associated with repairing and upgrading various fuel systems and fuel tanks at the Fort Worth Naval Air Station. In addition to providing that the successful offeror would be required to perform pipeline, equipment and control modifications, the solicitation stated that the project would require tank repairs and coating of the tanks, along with repairs to the concrete containment of the tanks. The solicitation contemplated award of a fixed-price contract and stated that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of price and the following non-price factors: management approach, small business subcontracting effort, technical qualifications, and past performance. /1/ The solicitation stated that all of the non-price evaluation factors were of approximately equal importance, and that price was of equal importance to the combined non-price factors. Four offerors, including Weston and Brickwood, submitted proposals by the December 3 closing date; thereafter, the proposals were evaluated by the agency. Weston's proposal was rated as "exceptional" under each of the non-price factors. Brickwood's proposal was rated as "unacceptable" /2/ with regard to management approach, small business subcontracting effort, and technical qualifications. /3/ Award was made to Weston without discussions on March 12. This protest followed. Brickwood asserts that its proposal should have been evaluated as offering the best value to the government. We disagree. With regard to the "management approach" evaluation factor, the solicitation identified only two elements for consideration. Specifically, the RFP advised offerors that they must "[s]ubmit Experience Modifier Rate (EMR) for each of the past three years," and must "[p]repare a computerized critical path method (CPM) schedule . . . for the total requirement." RFP at 11. Brickwood's proposal failed to comply with either of these directives. Accordingly, the agency evaluated the proposal as "unacceptable" under this evaluation factor. In responding to the agency report, Brickwood states: "It is correct that Brickwood did not submit EMR reports with its proposals." Comments on Agency Report at 4. Similarly, Brickwood acknowledges, "Brickwood did not submit a computerized CPM schedule." Protest at 4. With regard to the "small business sub-contracting effort" evaluation factor, the RFP advised offerors that their proposals would be evaluated on the basis of their commitment to subcontract with various types of small business concerns. Specifically, the RFP provided: The Naval Facilities Engineering Command has established sub-contracting goals of at least 65% of the sub-contracting effort to small businesses. Of the total sub-contracted effort, the goals are a minimum of 2.5% to HUBZone [historically underutilized Business Zone] firms, 12% to SDB [small disadvantaged business] firms, and 5% to WOSB [woman-owned small business] firms. RFP at 9. For a small business like Brickwood, the RFP requested detailed information concerning past subcontracting to SDBs and HUBZone firms. RFP at 10. Further, with regard to performance of this contract, the solicitation directed small business offerors to "[s]tate the extent of work, including type and percentages, you plan to sub-contract to LB [large business firms] HUBZone [firms], SB [small business firms, and] WOSB [firms]. RFP at 11. Brickwood's proposal failed to discuss any subcontracting effort. Accordingly, the agency evaluated Brickwood's proposal as unacceptable under this factor. In its protest and in responding to the agency report, Brickwood does not dispute that its proposal failed to discuss any subcontracting efforts, but asserts it was not required to comply with the solicitation provisions in this regard because Brickwood is a woman-owned small business.