Ballast Ham Dredging BV, B-291728; B-291728.2, April 4, 2003

Ballast Ham Dredging BV, B-291728; B-291728.2, April 4, 2003 TITLE: Ballast Ham Dredging BV, B-291728; B-291728.2, April 4, 2003 BNUMBER: B-291728; B-291728.2 DATE: April 4, 2003 ********************************************************************** Ballast Ham Dredging BV, B-291728; B-291728.2, April 4, 2003 Decision Matter of: Ballast Ham Dredging BV File: B-291848 Date: April 4, 2003 Simon Boon for the protester. Joseph A. Gonzales, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal as marginal under certain evaluation factors and selection of the awardee's higher-rated, slightly higher-priced proposal for the award of a contract for dredging were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Ballast Ham Dredging BV protests the award of a contract to Van Oord ACZ Marine Contractors BV, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACW01-02-R-0067, issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, for maintenance dredging of the access channel to the Port of Guayaquil, Ecuador. Ballast Ham argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal, and the selection of Van Oord's higher-priced proposal for award, were unreasonable. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for the dredging to be completed within 540 days. The successful contractor will provide all equipment, materials, and personnel to complete the dredging and dispose of the dredged materials in accordance with the terms of the RFP. The solicitation stated that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value, considering price and the following evaluation factors listed (with one exception) in descending order of importance: specialized experience on similar type work; dredging equipment; dredging approach; key personnel experience and qualifications; organization; and preliminary project schedule.[1] The RFP advised that to determine the *best value* proposal for award, the agency would consider all evaluation factors combined (other than price) equal in importance to price. The RFP included detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals, and requested that proposals include separate sections addressing each of the stated evaluation factors. The solicitation added that the agency intended to award a contract without conducting discussions and therefore offerors' initial proposals should contain their best terms with regard to both price and technical submissions. The agency received six proposals by the closing date. The proposals were reviewed, and clarification questions were provided to the offerors. Van Oord's proposal was evaluated as *above average,* with an identified *advantage,* under both the specialized experience on similar type work and dredging equipment factors, and *satisfactory* under the dredging approach, key personnel experience and qualifications, organization, and preliminary project schedule factors, at a price of $13,245,597.[2] Ballast Ham's proposal was also evaluated as *above average,* with an identified *advantage,* under both the specialized experience on similar type work and dredging equipment factors, and *satisfactory* under the key personnel experience and qualifications and organization factors; however, this proposal was rated *marginal,* with one *significant weakness,* under the dredging approach factor and *marginal,* with two *deficiencies,* under the preliminary project schedule factor, at a price of $12,872,087. AR, Tab I, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report, Dec. 5, 2002, at 1-3; attachs., Revised Consensus Evaluation Sheets, Van Oord's and Ballast Ham's Proposals. In considering the evaluation results, the source selection authority (SSA) and SSEB noted that the proposals submitted by Van Oord and two other offerors were technically acceptable or better as initially submitted, while the proposals of Ballast Ham and the remaining two offerors had deficiencies and/or weaknesses, such that *discussions would be necessary to allow them to bring their offers into compliance with the Solicitation.* The SSA also noted that Van Oord's proposal was evaluated as above average with advantages under the two most important evaluation factors (specialized experience and dredging equipment), and that it had offered a *highly competitive* price (only 3 percent higher than Ballast Ham's price). With regard to Ballast Ham's proposal, the SSA found that while it was the lowest-priced proposal, and like Van Oord's proposal had received *above average* ratings under the two most important evaluation factors, the proposal contained one significant weakness and two deficiencies that would need to be addressed through discussions.