ProTech Corporation, B-294818, December 30, 2004

B-294818 Dec 30, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ProTech Corporation protests the award of a contract to Atherton Construction, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912DQ-04-R-0015, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the construction of military family housing. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. View Decision B-294818, ProTech Corporation, December 30, 2004 Decision Matter of: ProTech Corporation File: B-294818 Date: December 30, 2004 Patrick S. Hendrickson, Esq., for the protester. Derek D. Crick, Esq., Preston Gates Ellis, for Atherton Construction, Inc., the intervenor. Roger Christopher Paden, Esq., Department of the Army, and John W. Klein, Esq., and Kenneth Dodds, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Selection of higher-rated, higher-priced proposal over lower-rated, lower-priced one was unreasonable, where the weight applied to the evaluation factors in the source selection decision differed from that announced in the solicitation. DECISION ProTech Corporation protests the award of a contract to Atherton Construction, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912DQ-04-R-0015, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the construction of military family housing. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. The RFP provided for the award of fixed-price contract for construction services described as a "Site Adapt/Design Build" of 62 new military family housing units, consisting of 30 duplexes and two "single story detached units." The construction project was divided into three phases, which the contractor was required to perform in the following sequence: phase one -- design and optional fast-track construction; phase two -- construction of new family housing units; and phase three- demolition of existing family housing units. See RFP at 1, 202. With respect to phase two, the RFP advised that "[t]he contractor will not be allowed to start construction of any portion of any housing unit, including its foundation until all main utilities are complete and operational and all curb and gutter, roads and pavements are installed." [1] RFP at 202. The solicitation schedule contained four contract line item numbers (CLINs) for the base requirement, for each of which offerors were required to propose a lump-sum price. [2] The schedule also contained eight CLINS that were identified as "betterments" that offerors were not required to propose or price. [3] RFP at 3-6. Offerors were informed that "[a]ll betterments offered in the proposal become a requirement of the awarded contract," and that the "[d]etermination of the Offeror's total price for the proposed work will be based on the TOTAL of the BASE SCHEDULE and BETTERMENT SCHEDULE. Immediate award will be made of the BASE SCHEDULE and the BETTERMENT SCHEDULE, if the cost is less than or equal to the Cost Limitation - Target Ceiling as stated below." RFP at 9, 204. The RFP identified the target ceiling to be14,969,000. See RFP at 9. Offerors were informed that award would be made on a "best value" basis considering the following evaluation factors: project management plan, experience, past performance, betterments, and price. [4] The project management plan factor was stated to be the most important factor and to be twice as important as any of the other technical evaluation factors. The experience, past performance, and betterments factors were stated to be equal in importance to each other. With respect to betterments, offerors were not required to propose any betterments, but the RFP informed offerors that "[m]ore betterments will be considered more favorably than fewer betterments." The RFP stated that price was equal in importance to the technical evaluation factors combined. See RFP at 42-44. In addition, the RFP provided for a 10-percent price evaluation preference in favor of Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) Zone small business concerns. See RFP at 93; Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.219-4. The agency received proposals from five offerors, including ProTech (a HUBZone small business concern) and Atherton (a large business). ProTech proposed a total price of14,958,000, including prices for six betterments; Atherton proposed a total price of $14,966,949, and did not offer any betterments. [5] The proposals were evaluated by the agency's source selection evaluation board (SSEB). The technical evaluation factors were adjectivally evaluated, [6] and prices were evaluated for realism, reasonableness, and completeness. Following the evaluation of initial proposals, the proposals of ProTech and Atherton were included in the competitive range. Discussions were conducted with both firms.