Cooperativa Maratori Riuniti-Anese, B-294747, October 15, 2004

B-294747 Oct 15, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Cooperativa Maratori Riuniti-Anese (CMR/Anese) protests the award of a contract to Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro S.p.a. (ICGM) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N33191-02-R-1076, issued by the Department of the Navy for construction of airplane parking areas at the Aviano Air Base, Italy. CMR/Anese challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection. We deny the protest. View Decision B-294747, Cooperativa Maratori Riuniti-Anese, October 15, 2004 Decision Matter of: Cooperativa Maratori Riuniti-Anese File: B-294747 Date: October 15, 2004 Reed L. von Maur, Esq., for the protester. Damon Martin, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester's proposal to complete one of three construction projects 5 days after date specified in solicitation rendered proposal unacceptable for failure to comply with material solicitation requirement. DECISION Cooperativa Maratori Riuniti-Anese (CMR/Anese) protests the award of a contract to Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro S.p.a. (ICGM) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N33191-02-R-1076, issued by the Department of the Navy for construction of airplane parking areas at the Aviano Air Base, Italy. CMR/Anese challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals to construct three airplane parking pads--South Ramp, North Ramp, and Zulu Arm/Dearm Pad. Proposals were to be evaluated under three technical factors--organizational experience, organizational past performance, and schedule--and price. The RFP warned that a marginal rating under any factor would result in the overall proposal being rated marginal (unless corrected through discussions), and that a proposal had to be rated at least satisfactory in order to be eligible for award. The RFP contemplated a "best value" award of a fixed-price contract. The RFP set a specific performance period for each of the three projects--540 days for the South Ramp, and 360 days each for the Zulu Pad and North Ramp projects. RFP at 00710-16. As to schedule, proposals were required to include the total number of days proposed for completion from the date of award. For purposes of evaluation, offerors were to base their proposed schedule(s) on the assumption that all options would be awarded and exercised with the award, which offerors were to assume would be September 15, 2004. RFP at 00202-4. Proposals were also to include a computer-generated critical path method (CPM) schedule with the number of days to complete the projects. Eight offerors, including CMR/Anese and ICGM, submitted proposals, which were evaluated by a technical evaluation board. CMR/Anese's proposal, at an offered price of 7.5 million, was rated marginal overall based on satisfactory ratings under the experience and past performance factors and a marginal rating under the schedule factor. ICGM's proposal, at an offered price of 7.9 million, was rated as good-plus overall. The agency determined that ICGM's proposal represented the best value and awarded it the contract without conducting discussions. At its debriefing, CMR/Anese learned that its marginal schedule rating was based on the agency's (erroneous) finding that its North Ramp schedule exceeded the allowed schedule by 5 days. When CMR/Anese showed the agency that, in fact, its North Ramp schedule was fully compliant with the RFP, the agency acknowledged its mistake and suspended the debriefing to reevaluate the protester's proposed schedule. Protest at 4. Upon further review, the agency recognized that it was CMR/Anese's schedule for the Zulu Pad that exceeded the completion date. Specifically, based on the RFP-required assumptions of a start date of September 15, 2004, the 360 days allotted for performance would expire on September 10, 2005. Although CMR/Anese proposed to perform the work in 324 days, a shorter period than the 360 days allowed by the RFP, its CPM schedule showed a start date of October 26, 2004 and a completion date of September 15, 2005, that is, 5 days beyond the assumed completion date. Based on this review, the Navy notified CMR/Anese that its proposal rating remained at marginal. The protester maintains that this evaluation conclusion was unreasonable. In reviewing a protest of an agency's evaluation of proposals, our review is confined to a determination of whether the agency acted reasonably and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. United Def. LP , B286925.3 et al. , Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD 75 at1011. The evaluation here--and resultant rejection of the protester's proposal--was reasonable.