Impregilo Edilizia S.p.A., B-292468.4, November 25, 2003

B-292468.4 Nov 25, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protester's contention that agency improperly downgraded its past performance rating after a reevaluation of proposals in connection with the agency's implementation of corrective action is denied where agency reasonably determined that protester's past performance projects materially differed from the projects contemplated by the solicitation. Impregilo principally alleges that the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal was improper. Award was to be made to the firm submitting the proposal that provided the best value to the government. These four factors were of equal importance to each other and. Were approximately equal to price. /1/ Regarding the past performance factor. View Decision Impregilo Edilizia S.p.A., B-292468.4, November 25, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Impregilo Edilizia S.p.A. protests the award of a contract to La Termica S.r.l. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N33191-03-R-0214, issued by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) for miscellaneous design, construction, alterations, repair, and/or improvements to real property in southern Italy. Impregilo principally alleges that the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal was improper. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on March 10, 2003, provided for award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity task order construction contract for a base period of 1 year, with total orders not to exceed the euro equivalent of $2 million, and up to four 1-year options, with a total contract amount not to exceed the euro equivalent of $10 million. Task orders issued under the contract would be for "all labor, supervision, transportation, materials, tools, and equipment to provide miscellaneous design, construction, alteration, repair, and/or improvements to real property" at locations in "Naples, Gaeta, and other possible Southern Italy areas." RFP Sec. 01110, at 1. An individual task order could not be for an amount more than the euro equivalent of $450,000. Award was to be made to the firm submitting the proposal that provided the best value to the government, considering technical merit and price. In connection with the agency's technical evaluation of the proposals, the RFP set forth four technical evaluation factors: (1) past performance; (2) organizational structure and capabilities; (3) design capabilities; and (4) quality control. These four factors were of equal importance to each other and, when combined, were approximately equal to price. /1/ Regarding the past performance factor, the RFP provided in relevant part that offerors "must have performed at least satisfactorily on recent (completed in the past three years) similar projects with regard to construction features, dollar value, and complexity." RFP Sec. 00202, at 4. Under the second factor, organizational structure and capabilities, the RFP required offerors to demonstrate their "ability to provide adequate staff/organizational structure, and resources to successfully accomplish the requirements of this RFP. Demonstrate relevant corporate experience and resources that indicate the ability to successfully manage and complete a variety of projects." RFP Sec. 00202, at 5. The third factor, design capabilities, required offerors to demonstrate their "ability to provide adequate project design experience and a knowledge and familiarity with Italian and U.S. building codes and design criteria." Id. The "standard of acceptability" under this factor is defined as follows: "The extent to which the contractor provides experienced personnel with project design experience which demonstrates a high potential for success." Id. The agency received seven proposals, including a proposal from Impregilo. Upon receipt of the proposals, pursuant to the source selection plan, the agency convened a technical evaluation board (TEB) to evaluate the offerors' technical proposals and a price evaluation board (PEB) to evaluate their prices. The TEB rated the proposals under each of the four technical evaluation factors using the following adjectival rating scale: poor, marginal, satisfactory, good, or excellent. Based on these scores, the TEB gave each proposal an overall technical rating using the same adjectival scale. /2/ The RFP further provided that the ratings could be assigned "rating factors of +/- to differentiate various level of ability within each factor and between proposals as a whole." RFP Sec. 00202, at 2. Based on its evaluation, the TEB assigned Impregilo's proposal an overall technical score of good. With respect to Impregilo's past performance, the TEB identified several strengths and no weaknesses, and specifically stated that all the projects submitted by Impregilo "were similar and/or exceeded the size, scope, and complexity to that contemplated by the RFP.