Cooperativa Muratori Riuniti, B-294980; B-294980.2, January 21, 2005

Cooperativa Muratori Riuniti, B-294980; B-294980.2, January 21, 2005 TITLE: Cooperativa Muratori Riuniti, B-294980; B-294980.2, January 21, 2005 BNUMBER: B-294980; B-294980.2 DATE: January 21, 2005 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Cooperativa Muratori Riuniti File: B-294980; B-294980.2 Date: January 21, 2005 Reed L. von Maur, Esq., for the protester. Susan L. Schor, Esq., and Laurence Schor, Esq., McManus, Schor, Asmar & Darden, for Impresa Pizzarotti & C. S.p.A., an intervenor. Damon Martin, Esq., and Shivaun White, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency. Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. In evaluating proposals for construction work, agency has not provided a reasonable basis for distinguishing between offerors' experience in performing multiple projects at multiple sites under a single contract and offerors' experience in performing multiple projects at multiple sites under multiple contracts, particularly where solicitation called for performance at two separate work sites. 2. Protest against evaluation of past performance is sustained where record reveals that protester's past performance was re-rated by the evaluators on a different scale and in response to different questions than those posed to the references, and it is not clear that the new ratings were reasonably based. 3. Evaluators reasonably rated protester's proposed construction schedule as good, as opposed to excellent, where they determined that protester had offered an accelerated schedule, but had failed to offer evidence that it had thought through the implications of that schedule with regard to matters such as staffing. DECISION Cooperativa Muratori Riuniti (CMR) protests the evaluation of its proposal and the award of a contract to Impresa Pizzarotti & C. S.p.A. (Pizzarotti) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N33191-04-R-4004, issued by the Department of the Navy for construction of two facilities at Aviano Air Force Base in Italy. The protester takes issue with the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, requested prices for a base and six optional line items. Contract line item No. (CLIN) 0001 (the base item) and CLIN 0002 sought prices for the work associated with "Phase II" of the effort, construction of a personnel alert holding area. CLINs 0003-0007 sought prices for the work associated with "Phase I" of the effort, construction of a heavy drop rigging facility. The agency notes that the sites at which the two "phases" will be performed are approximately a half-mile apart. The solicitation provided for exercise of CLIN 0002 within 180 days after contract award, CLIN 0003 within 365 days after contract award, and CLINs 0004-0007 within 90 days after exercise of CLIN 0003. The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. Three equally weighted factors--organizational experience, organizational past performance, and schedule--were to be considered in the evaluation of technical proposals; taken together, these factors were to be of approximately equal weight to price in the evaluation. Proposals were to be rated both overall and with regard to each evaluation factor as excellent, good, satisfactory, marginal, or poor. Six offerors responded to the RFP. The technical evaluation board (TEB) assigned Pizzarotti's technical proposal ratings of excellent for past performance and schedule and a rating of good for organizational experience; overall, the TEB rated the proposal as excellent. The TEB rated CMR's proposal as good for past performance and schedule and as satisfactory for organizational experience, resulting in an overall technical rating of good. The other proposals were rated lower. CMR's overall price, inclusive of all options, of [deleted] was [deleted], while Pizzarotti's price of *20,716,210 was [deleted]. The source selection board determined that the additional quality of Pizzarotti's proposal outweighed the price difference between the two proposals and selected it for award. On September 23, 2004, the Navy notified Pizzarotti and CMR that Pizzarotti had been awarded a contract for CLINs 0001 and 0002.