International Roofing & Building Construction, Inc., B-292833, November 17, 2003

B-292833 Nov 17, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The subject contracts are for roof installation and repairs at various locations on Oahu. One provision in the contracts is a specific requirement for identifying. The technical factor was comprised of two equally weighted subfactors: past performance/experience and technical approach. Amendment No. 9 to the RFP stated the following regarding the technical approach subfactor: (a) The Government will evaluate your plan to execute abatement work. International's and D&A's experience was found "substantial. " whereas Allied's was found "adequate.". All three offerors' past performance/experience risk was considered low. Allied's and D&A's technical approaches were rated "acceptable" with low risk. View Decision International Roofing & Building Construction, Inc., B-292833, November 17, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION International Roofing & Building Construction, Inc. protests the awards of contracts to Allied Pacific Builders, Inc. and D&A Joint Venture by the Department of the Navy pursuant to request for proposals No. N62742-03-R-2230, for roof installation and repairs. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued January 10, 2003 as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside, provided for the award of an indefinite-quantity contract or contracts for a 1-year base period with options to extend the term of the contract up to 60 months. The subject contracts are for roof installation and repairs at various locations on Oahu, Hawaii. One provision in the contracts is a specific requirement for identifying, listing and sampling hazardous waste materials, such as lead paint, and the testing of lead paint surfaces. The RFP advised that the offers would be evaluated for award based on the equally weighted evaluation factors of price and technical. The technical factor was comprised of two equally weighted subfactors: past performance/experience and technical approach. Amendment No. 9 to the RFP stated the following regarding the technical approach subfactor: (a) The Government will evaluate your plan to execute abatement work. Include your process to identify, list, sample and abate the hazardous material. The agency received ten proposals, including those of International, Allied and D&A, by the March 3 closing date. International, Allied and D&A each received "exceptional" past performance ratings, and International's and D&A's experience was found "substantial," whereas Allied's was found "adequate." All three offerors' past performance/experience risk was considered low. Allied's and D&A's technical approaches were rated "acceptable" with low risk, while International's was rated "marginal" with moderate risk. /1/ Agency Report, encl. 10, Business Clearance Memorandum, at 7. The reason that International's technical approach was rated "marginal" was that its "proposal lack[ed] details on the identification, listing, and sampling procedures for hazardous waste materials," which the agency considered to be a "significant weakness." Agency Report, encl. 10, International's Rating Sheet, at 1-2. International's evaluated price was $12,597,800, Allied's $14,045,000, and D&A's $14,062,500.8. Agency Report, encl. 10, Business Clearance Memorandum, at 8. On July 7, the agency determined that the proposals of Allied and D&A offered the best value to the government, and made award to those firms. This protest followed. International disagrees with the agency's determination that its proposal was deficient because its work plan for removing lead-containing paint lacked identification, listing and sampling procedures for lead paint. In reviewing a protest against an agency's evaluation of proposals, we will examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria as well as with procurement statutes and regulations. Symetrics Indus., Inc., B-274246.10, Sept. 17, 1998, 98-2 CPD Para. 78 at 5. In order for a protester to demonstrate that an evaluation was unreasonable, it is not enough merely to express disagreement with that evaluation. Cubic Applications, Inc., B-274768 et al., Jan. 2, 1997, 97-1 CPD Para. 98 at 3. Here, while International contends that its 69-page lead-containing paint removal work plan demonstrates its appreciation and understanding of the hazardous risks associated with the project, our review confirms that it lacked a plan to identify, list and sample lead paint and to test lead paint surfaces. A procuring agency's technical evaluation is dependent upon the information furnished in the offeror's proposal, Computerized Project Mgmt. Plus, B-247063, Apr. 28,1992, 92-1 CPD Para. 401 at 3, and all offerors are expected to demonstrate their capabilities and submit required information in their proposals. McAllister & Assocs., Inc., B-277029.3, Feb. 18, 1998, 98-1 CPD Para. 85 at 4; EOD Tech., Inc., B-266026, Dec. 18, 1995, 95-2 CPD Para.