Shumaker Trucking and Excavating Contractors, Inc., B-290732, September 25, 2002

B-290732 Sep 25, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Challenge to agency's evaluation of protester's proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably evaluated the protester's proposal in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation factors. 2. Higher priced proposal is unreasonable where the record shows that the agency mechanically applied the solicitation's evaluation methodology. Shumaker alleges that the evaluation of its technical proposal was unreasonable and that the agency's selection decision was improper. Key personnel. /1/ The RFP notified offerors that the experience factor was more important than technical approach. Which was slightly more important than the past performance and key personnel factors. Which were of equal importance. View Decision Shumaker Trucking and Excavating Contractors, Inc., B-290732, September 25, 2002 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Shumaker Trucking and Excavating Contractors, Inc. protests the award of a contract to URS Group, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. R1-11-02-001, issued by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, for the reclamation of the New World Mine in Park County, Montana. Shumaker alleges that the evaluation of its technical proposal was unreasonable and that the agency's selection decision was improper. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued on April 1, 2002, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for the consolidation and capping of mine waste in the McLaren Pit, as the second phase of the New World Mine reclamation project. The solicitation established four technical evaluation factors: past performance, experience in similar work, technical approach to perform the work, and key personnel. /1/ The RFP notified offerors that the experience factor was more important than technical approach, which was slightly more important than the past performance and key personnel factors, which were of equal importance. The solicitation also established that all four technical evaluation factors, when combined, were approximately equal in importance to price. RFP Sec. M-2. The RFP stated that the Forest Service intended to make award, without discussions, "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-1. Four offerors, including Shumaker and URS, submitted proposals by the May 1 closing date. Shumaker submitted the lowest-priced offer of $3,591,956.15, and URS the second-lowest price of $3,987,695.20. A technical evaluation panel (TEP) rated the technical proposals under the weighted evaluation factors utilizing a point scale rating system. /2/ The technical evaluation scores of the proposals of URS and Shumaker, the two highest rated, were as follows: Technical Factor URS Shumaker Past Performance (30) 26 22 Experience (55) 48 39 Technical Approach (45) 43 20 Key Personnel (30) 17 12 Total (160) 134 93 Agency Report, Tab E, Record of Proposal Evaluation, at 2. After evaluating technical proposals, and being informed of the offerors' prices, the TEP recommended that contract award be made to URS. The contracting officer also concluded that the difference in technical scores between URS and Shumaker justified the higher price, and recommended to the source selection authority (SSA) that award be made to URS. /3/ Agency Report, Tab D, Memorandum of Negotiation, at 2. The Forest Service informed Shumaker of the award decision on June 6, and this protest followed. /4/ Shumaker protests that the agency's decision to make award to URS was improper. Specifically, the protester contends that the Forest Service's evaluation of its technical proposal, especially in comparison with that of URS, was unreasonable. Shumaker also alleges that the agency's selection decision improperly failed to explain why selection of a higher-priced proposal represented the best value to the government here. Shumaker argues that if the Forest Service had reasonably evaluated its technical proposal, and conducted a proper best value determination, then Shumaker would have been awarded the contract here. While the record shows that the agency's evaluation of Shumaker's technical proposal was reasonable, we find that the Forest Service failed to properly explain its award selection decision, and we sustain the protest on this basis. Shumaker first contends that the Forest Service improperly evaluated its proposal. Specifically, Shumaker alleges that with regard to each of the four technical factors, the agency's evaluation was unreasonable and not in accordance with the evaluation criteria, especially in relation to how the agency evaluated URS's proposal.