Independence Construction, Inc.�, B-292052, May 19, 2003

B-292052 May 19, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where the weaknesses found in the protester's proposal were reasonably encompassed in the evaluation factors and were attributable to a lack of detail in the protester's proposal. Provided for award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror "whose proposal is technically acceptable and . . . whose technical/cost relationship is the most advantageous to the Government.". The evaluation factors were past performance. The first two factors were said to be of equal importance and together were more important than cost. The technical approach/organization structure factor included four subfactors: (1) how the project will be managed and staffed. The TET reconvened to "memorialize[] their earlier analysis" and the contracting officer (who was also the source selection authority) documented the cost/technical tradeoff. /1/ Agency Report (AR) at 2. View Decision Independence Construction, Inc., B-292052, May 19, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Independence Construction, Inc. protests the award of a contract to DG&S Co. under request for proposals (RFP) No. R1-04-03-12, issued by the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, for the restoration and construction of roads and a segment of Hamilton Creek in the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. Independence contends that the agency misevaluated its technical proposal using unstated evaluation criteria. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued September 19, 2002, provided for award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror "whose proposal is technically acceptable and . . . whose technical/cost relationship is the most advantageous to the Government." RFP at 85. The evaluation factors were past performance, technical approach/organization structure, and cost/price. The first two factors were said to be of equal importance and together were more important than cost. The technical approach/organization structure factor included four subfactors: (1) how the project will be managed and staffed, addressing the contractor's proposed schedule of operations; (2) skills and skill levels within the firm to accomplish the project; (3) quality control; and (4) safety. RFP at 85-86. In response to the RFP, seven offerors submitted proposals by the October 18 closing date. A technical evaluation team (TET) reviewed and evaluated proposals, and, on November 12, the agency made award to DG&S. Independence protested the award on November 22. The agency then took corrective action to better document its award decision, and we dismissed that protest. The TET reconvened to "memorialize[] their earlier analysis" and the contracting officer (who was also the source selection authority) documented the cost/technical tradeoff. /1/ Agency Report (AR) at 2. The agency again selected DG&S for award after determining that its proposal presented the "best value to the government considering the factors stated in the solicitation." AR, Tab H, Memorandum of Negotiations, at 5. The agency found that both DG&S and Independence had acceptable past performance. /2/ However, DG&S's technical approach/organization structure was rated "green [acceptable] plus," whereas Independence's technical approach/organization structure was rated "yellow [marginal] plus." AR, Tab J, TET Report, at 1. Only DG&S's proposal was rated acceptable overall among the proposals received; Independence's proposal was rated marginal overall. Independence's proposed final price was $107,800.00 and DG&S's was $124,624.44. AR, Tab H, Memorandum of Negotiations, at 2. Independence's technical approach/organization structure was considered marginal because it "contained critical omissions" and "failed to adequately address the evaluation criteria." For example, the agency found that the proposal provided "[o]nly general statements with no supportive documentation to demonstrate sound project management." The proposal only "briefly addressed a schedule of operations," and "did not adequately address a timeline for performance." The agency found that the qualifications and experience of key personnel were "not demonstrated" or "tied to specific projects," and no resumes were provided.