B-297011.3; B-297011.4, Nicholson/Soletanche Joint Venture, April 20, 2006

B-297011.3; B-297011.4, Nicholson/Soletanche Joint Venture, April 20, 2006 TITLE: B-297011.3; B-297011.4, Nicholson/Soletanche Joint Venture, April 20, 2006 BNUMBER: B-297011.3; B-297011.4 DATE: April 20, 2006 ************************************************************************** B-297011.3; B-297011.4, Nicholson/Soletanche Joint Venture, April 20, 2006 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: Nicholson/Soletanche Joint Venture File: B-297011.3; B-297011.4 Date: April 20, 2006 Brian P. Waagner, Esq., Elizabeth M. Gill, Esq., and J. Michael Littlejohn, Esq., Wickwire Gavin, P.C., for the protester. Robert K. Cox, Esq., Robert G. Barbour, Esq., Kevin J. McKeon, Esq., and Hanna L. Blake, Esq., Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP, for Brayman Construction Corporation, an intervenor. Willie J. Williams, Esq., United States Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is denied where the agency reasonably evaluated proposals in accordance with the terms of the solicitation and where the solicitation provided that the combined technical evaluation factors were significantly more important than price, the agency reasonably selected for award a higher technically rated, slightly higher priced proposal. DECISION Nicholson/Soletanche Joint Venture (NSJV) protests the award of a contract to Brayman Construction Corporation (BCC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91237-05-R-0005, issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers for dam safety assurance requirements at Bluestone Dam in Hinton, West Virginia. NSJV protests the evaluation of proposals and the selection of BCC's higher technically rated, slightly higher priced proposal for award. We deny the protest.[1] BACKGROUND In this procurement, the Bluestone Dam, which is over 50 years old, is to be upgraded to meet current engineering standards. More specifically, the dam, which is comprised of concrete monoliths, is to be renovated through the installation of high capacity rock anchors which will prevent the dam from overturning or sliding downstream during extreme flood events. Under the contract, 150 multi-strand, steel-cabled anchors will be installed. Because the alignment of the anchors is critical, the anchor holes will be drilled using a procedure called "directional drilling," which will allow the holes to be drilled with greater precision. The RFP was issued on March 4, 2005 and contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal conformed to the RFP and was determined to be most advantageous to the government, considering price and the following technical evaluation factors: (1) planned technical execution of key work elements; (2) past performance; and (3) project management, quality control, key personnel, and schedule. (These evaluation factors were listed in descending order of importance, with factor (1) being considered significantly more important than factors (2) and (3).) Factor (1)--planned technical execution of key work elements--contained the following three subfactors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) drilling techniques; (2) anchor installment; and (3) site use and access. As relevant here, under the drilling techniques subfactor, an offeror was to describe the directional drilling method to be used to meet specified drilling tolerances and to substantiate that the directional drilling method would have real time survey control and directional correction. The RFP, as amended, stated that the directional drilling "should" be performed by a firm which had at least 3 years of experience engaged in directional drilling; the amended RFP required the driller to have drilled holes using directional drilling techniques at specified drilling tolerances on at least two projects. RFP amend. 3, at 2. Factor (2)--past performance--required an offeror to provide a list of relevant projects, current or completed, in the past 8 years that best demonstrated the firm's performance with "this type or similar types" of projects. Id. The amended RFP stated that an offeror "should" include in its proposal information related to its prior experience with installing high capacity anchors, with designing anchor heads for such anchors, and with installing full length corrosion protection.