CSE Construction, B-291268.2, December 16, 2002

B-291268.2 Dec 16, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Higher-priced proposal was unreasonable where the source selection authority did not credit the protester for its substantially lower proposed price. Offerors were informed that the agency planned to make award. The technical evaluation factors were stated to be together more important than price. The following technical evaluation factors and subfactors were identified: 1. The RFP provided that factor 1 was more important than factors 2 and 3. Which were of equal importance. That the subfactors were listed under each factor in descending order of importance. That is. Offerors were required to provide a fixed price for design. The RFP stated that price will not be point scored but will be subjectively evaluated for reasonableness over the life of the contract. . . . View Decision CSE Construction, B-291268.2, December 16, 2002 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION CSE Construction, a small business concern, protests the award of a contract to KCI Construction Company, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA41-02-R-0006, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the design and construction of firing ranges at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. CSE challenges the agency's technical and price evaluation of its proposal. We sustain the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for design and construction services to upgrade an existing firing range and to build a new range at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Offerors were informed that the agency planned to make award, without conducting discussions, on the basis of a price/technical tradeoff. The technical evaluation factors were stated to be together more important than price. The following technical evaluation factors and subfactors were identified: 1. Past Performance . Quality of product and services . Customer satisfaction . Timeliness of performance 2. Corporate Experience . Construction experience with projects of similar . type, size and complexity . Designer experience with projects of similar type, . size and complexity 3. Management Plan . General management structure and plan . Management of multiple subcontractors including designer architect-engineer RFP amend 2, at 27. The RFP provided that factor 1 was more important than factors 2 and 3, which were of equal importance, and that the subfactors were listed under each factor in descending order of importance. With respect to price, the RFP requested only that offerors provide fixed prices for eight contract line items (CLIN) that comprised various aspects of the design and construction work. RFP amend. 2, at 3. That is, for each of the firing ranges, offerors were required to provide a fixed price for design, construction of buildings, site work, and utility work. The RFP requested no cost data or information explaining offerors' proposed prices for these CLINs. With regard to the price evaluation, the RFP stated that price will not be point scored but will be subjectively evaluated for reasonableness over the life of the contract. . . . Because the evaluation of the price proposal will represent a portion of the total evaluation, it is possible that an offeror might not be selected because of an unbalanced or an unreasonable price proposal. RFP amend. 2, at 27-28. The Corps received three proposals, including those of CSE and KCI. The proposals were evaluated by the agency's technical evaluation team (TET), as follows: Factor Subfactor KCI CSE Past Quality of product or Very Good Very good Performance service . Customer satisfaction Very good Very good . Timeliness of performance Satisfactory Very good Corporate Construction experience Very good Satisfactory Experience . Designer experience Excellent Marginal Management General management Satisfactory Marginal Plan structure . Management of multiple Satisfactory Satisfactory . subcontractors Agency Report, Tab 4, TET Report, Aug. 14, 2002, at 7. CSE received a marginal rating under the designer experience subfactor because CSE's proposed design subcontractor had no specific experience with firing ranges. CSE's marginal rating for the general management structure subfactor reflected the evaluators' judgment that CSE's organizational chart lacked detail and that there was no discussion of the firm's design/build strategy. Id. at 6. CSE submitted the lowest price of $2,558,716, and KCI submitted the next low price of $4,875,000. The government estimate was $4,325,100, and the third offeror submitted a price of $4,910,256. Agency Report, Tab 5, Price Evaluation Team (PET) Report, Aug. 16, 2002, at 2. The PET concluded that CSE's price was unreasonably low, stating that: This low offeror is CSE from Rolla, Missouri, which is approximately 35 miles from Fort Leonard Wood. This project is a design/build, which implies a certain amount of impreciseness.