J.C.N. Construction Company, Inc., B-293063, January 9, 2004

B-293063 Jan 09, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Adjectival rating of protester's proposal as acceptable rather than very good under relevant past performance subfactor was unobjectionable. Where past record was not the sole basis for the evaluation. Subsequent task orders were to be competed among the awardees. A significant number of projects were to include design/build tasks. Projects were anticipated to have an estimated cost of between $25. Proposals were to be evaluated as exceptional (Except.). Price. /2/ The combined technical subfactors were of equal importance to price. Award was to be made to the offerors whose proposals were most advantageous to the government. Was to be made to the firm among the awardees submitting the lowest price.). View Decision J.C.N. Construction Company, Inc., B-293063, January 9, 2004 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION J.C.N. Construction Company, Inc. protests the award of construction contracts to five other offerors under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62472-03-R-0041, issued by the Department of the Navy for construction services. /1/ J.C.N. challenges the evaluation of its technical proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals to provide new construction, alterations, renovations, maintenance, repairs, demolition, and design/build projects at federal installations in Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire, plus a "seed project" consisting of construction of a military working dog kennel at Naval Air Station Brunswick. The RFP contemplated the award of up to five indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity construction contracts for a period of 5 years. Subsequent task orders were to be competed among the awardees. A significant number of projects were to include design/build tasks. Projects were anticipated to have an estimated cost of between $25,000 and $1.7 million, with a maximum of $30 million for all projects ordered during the contract performance period. Proposals were to be evaluated as exceptional (Except.), very good (VG), acceptable (Accept.) deficient but correctable, or unacceptable under four equally-weighted technical subfactors--relevant past performance, management approach, safety record, and commitment to small businesses--and price. /2/ The combined technical subfactors were of equal importance to price. Award was to be made to the offerors whose proposals were most advantageous to the government. (Award of the seed project, not in issue here, was to be made to the firm among the awardees submitting the lowest price.) Seventeen offerors, including J.C.N., submitted timely proposals, which were evaluated by a technical evaluation team (TET). After the initial evaluation round, J.C.N.'s proposal was ranked seventh of the nine included in the competitive range. The agency conducted discussions with the offerors, including J.C.N., and obtained revised proposals and final proposal revisions. The final evaluation results for all proposals, in order of technical merit, were as follows: > After review of the TET's report and recommendations, the source selection board (SSB) recommended award to: Patel (proposal technically acceptable and lowest price), MCC (proposal ranked first technically and offered the second lowest price), Zachau (sixth technically and third lowest price), DTC (fifth technically and fourth lowest price), and Haskell. Regarding Haskell, the agency reasoned that its proposal's technical superiority over J.C.N.'s (second versus seventh)--was worth Haskell's higher price. The source selection authority adopted the SSB's recommendation and awarded the five contracts. After receiving a debriefing, J.C.N. filed this protest challenging the evaluation of its own proposal. J.C.N. asserts that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal under the relevant past performance subfactor, and that, had it been evaluated properly, J.C.N. would have been in line for one of the awards. According to J.C.N., its proposal rating of acceptable is inconsistent with its favorable past performance record, which included projects under which its performance was rated by references as exceptional (4 projects), very good (7), acceptable (4), satisfactory (1), and fair (1). In J.C.N.'s view, its proposal should have been rated very good. /3/ In reviewing a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, it is not our role to reevaluate proposals. Rather, we will consider only whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. CWIS, LLC, B-287521, July 2, 2001, 2001 CPD Para. 119 at 2. The evaluation here was unobjectionable. The record shows that J.C.N.'s favorable past performance record was considered by the TET, evaluated as very good, and noted as J.C.N.'s sole strength. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, at 33.