B-296626, Firetech Automatic Sprinkler, September 22, 2005

B-296626 Sep 22, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Firetech Automatic Sprinkler protests the U.S. Forest Service's award to Concept Integrators, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. R5SC0605018, for construction work. We deny the protest. View Decision B-296626, Firetech Automatic Sprinkler, September 22, 2005 Decision Matter of: Firetech Automatic Sprinkler File: B-296626 Date: September 22, 2005 A. W. Pharris for the protester. Elin M. Dugan, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably determined, in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation criteria, that the awardee's superior experience and past performance justified award based on its slightly higher-priced quotation. DECISION Firetech Automatic Sprinkler protests the U.S. Forest Service's award to Concept Integrators, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. R5SC0605018, for construction work. We deny the protest. The RFQ, issued on January 13, 2005 under the simplified acquisition procedures prescribed in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 13 and posted on the FedBizOpps website, sought improvements to the Information Center Kiosk at Bucks Lake, Plumas National Forest, Quincy, California. The project required construction of a roof over the existing stone veneer kiosk and site work to include clearing, grading, aggregate base, asphalt pavement, concrete, concrete staining, a trash receptacle, picnic tables, and the construction of a dry creek bed. The award was to be made on a –best value— basis considering price, experience and past performance. As permitted by the solicitation, the agency, in its evaluation, gave equal evaluation weight to these three factors and rated them based on a 5'point scale.[1] Vendors were instructed to –provide a list of all contracts completed within the last three years.— Additionally, the RFQ advised that –[q]uoters with no record of past performance will receive a neutral rating for past performance— and that –[q]uoters with no experience in the type of work solicited, may list other types of contracts which exemplify their past performance.— RFQ at 43. In response to the RFQ, the Forest Service received seven quotations, including Firetech's quotation priced at $46,405 and Concept's quotation priced at $47,480. Only the four lowest priced quotations were evaluated, as they were the only ones within the government's $50,000 budget. The Forest Service initially selected Concept for award on March 3, but decided to reevaluate the quotations of Concept and Firetech, after Firetech complained, and the agency confirmed, that its references had not been contacted during the initial evaluation. The agency thus requested that these two vendors submit supplemental past performance data for further evaluation. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. Based on this reevaluation, the agency determined that Concept's experience and past performance were superior to Firetech's, such that Concept's slightly higher priced quotation represented the –best value for the government.— Agency Report, Tab E, Source Selection Report, at 1. Firetech's experience rating was based on its –recent experience, which indicated two projects, consisting of simple maintenance work, on projects not yet completed.— The agency found that the contracting officer's technical representative (COTR) on these Forest Service contracts –expressed a general satisfaction with the work but reported that work was not done in a timely manner and on both contracts extensions for additional time [were] needed.—[2] With respect to the other two contracts referenced by Firetech in its quotation, the agency found that the contracts for –sprinkler systems installations, though very good, were not completed within the last three years,— and therefore were not considered in the evaluation. Id. In contrast, the agency found that Concept's superior experience was a result of –five projects, two ongoing and three completed within the last two years, with experience involving both heavy maintenance and construction projects.— With respect to past performance, the panel found that all of Concept's references expressed complete satisfaction or 99 percent satisfaction and that all contracts were completed on time (except in one instance where poor communication with the subcontractor was the cause of delay, although this reference stressed the –contractor's good quality work.—). Id. Firetech argues that the Corps unreasonably evaluated its experience and past performance, and did not give sufficient weight to its low price. As noted above, the procurement was conducted under simplified acquisition procedures.