Southern California Engineering, Inc., B-296244, July 11, 2005

B-296244 Jul 11, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Southern California Engineering, Inc. (SoCal) protests the award of a contract to Moltz Constructors, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 05-SP-30-8023 by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, for removal and replacement of specified pumps at the Hoover Dam and Powerplant. The protester argues that its proposal was unreasonably determined to be technically unacceptable due to flaws in the evaluation. We deny the protest. View Decision B-296244, Southern California Engineering, Inc., July 11, 2005 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Southern California Engineering, Inc. File: B-296244 Date: July 11, 2005 Thomas M. Finrow, Esq., for the protester. Alton E. Woods, Esq., Sherry Kinland Kaswell, Esq., and Veronica Rowan, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is denied where agency reasonably determined that protester's proposal for removal and replacement of pumps did not provide sufficient detail regarding the accomplishment of the work and the replacement pumps to be installed, and was therefore technically unacceptable. DECISION Southern California Engineering, Inc. (SoCal) protests the award of a contract to Moltz Constructors, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 05-SP-30-8023 by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, for removal and replacement of specified pumps at the Hoover Dam and Powerplant. The protester argues that its proposal was unreasonably determined to be technically unacceptable due to flaws in the evaluation. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to remove and replace sump pumps at the dam. The criteria for award specified that the non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. RFP at M-1. The RFP indicated, through incorporation of the provision in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Section 52.215-1(f)(4), that the agency intended to make award without holding discussions. RFP at L-1. The RFP called for evaluation of proposals based on the following evaluation factors and weights: Factor 1 - Technical Approach - (Total Points: 35) Responses to this factor will be evaluated in the areas of cost and schedule management. The work plan will be evaluated for sufficient details to demonstrate a clear understanding of the major tasks involved in the work. [1] Factor 2 - Proposed Pumps - (Total Points: 15) Responses to this factor will be evaluated for detail[ed] performance and technical characteristics of the proposed pumps. [2] Factor 3 - Experience of Key Personnel - (Total Points: 10) . . . Factor 4 - Offer[or]'s Past Performance - (Total Points: 5) . . . Factor 5 - Cost/Price - (Total Points: 35) . . . RFP at M-2. The technical evaluation report [3] ranked SoCal's proposal as fifth out of the five proposals overall, and concluded that SoCal's proposal was technically unacceptable. AR, Tab 25, Technical Evaluation Report, at 7. Under the two most important technical factors, the evaluators rated SoCal 18.75 out of 35 ("Adequate") [4] in technical approach, and 2.75 out of 15 ("Poor/Absent") for its proposed pumps. On the remaining factors, SoCal was rated 3.5 out of 5 ("Good") and 3.75 out of 5 ("Very Good") for key personnel (the evaluation of which was divided into two subfactors), and 2.75 out of 5 ("Adequate") for past performance. Nevertheless, the overall rating of SoCal's proposal was 31.5 out of 65 ("Weak/Deficient"), reflecting the significance of the low rating on the technical approach factor and the poor rating under the proposed pumps factor. The technical evaluation report narrative summarized the evaluation thus: SoCal's proposal showed that the company understands the complexity of this project but failed to provide detailed information on methods needed to accomplish the work. The written portion gave poor and incomplete descriptions of the work that needs to be performed. The proposal did not include a schedule that showed the sequencing of work and the required time to perform the work.