B-310340.2, Angel Menendez Environmental Services, Inc., April 11, 2008

B-310340.2 Apr 11, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Angel Menendez Environmental Services, Inc. (AMES) protests the award of a contract to Strategic Perspectives Development, LLC under solicitation No. VA-101-07-RP-0030, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for general construction, asbestos abatement, and lead abatement work at the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in San Antonio, Texas. AMES contends that the agency's evaluation and selection of the awardee's proposal were inconsistent with the evaluation scheme provided in the solicitation. We deny the protest. View Decision B-310340.2, Angel Menendez Environmental Services, Inc., April 11, 2008 Decision Matter of: Angel Menendez Environmental Services, Inc. File: B-310340.2 Date: April 11, 2008 A. S. Menendez and Gil Bakshi for the protester. Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Stacey North Willis, Esq., and Charlma Quarles, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of award to firm that submitted lower-rated, lower-priced proposal in negotiated procurement where all technical factors combined were approximately equal in importance to cost is denied where protest is based on an unreasonable interpretation of a solicitation provision (calling for selection of lower-priced proposal if technical proposals are found essentially equal) as prohibiting award to lower-priced offeror if technical proposals are not considered essentially equal. DECISION Angel Menendez Environmental Services, Inc. (AMES) protests the award of a contract to Strategic Perspectives Development, LLC under solicitation No. VA-101-07-RP-0030, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for general construction, asbestos abatement, and lead abatement work at the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in San Antonio, Texas. AMES contends that the agency's evaluation and selection of the awardee's proposal were inconsistent with the evaluation scheme provided in the solicitation. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business set-aside procurement, sought proposals for the award of a fixed-price contract for construction services, including architectural construction and work on mechanical, electrical, utility, fire alarm, and fire protection systems. RFP at 1. The RFP advised that the evaluation and award would be –made on the basis of both cost and technical considerations most advantageous to the Government . . . .— Id. at 2-3. Offerors were advised that the stated technical evaluation factors (construction management, past performance, and schedule, listed in descending order of importance) combined were to be –approximately equal in importance to cost or price.— Id. at 3. The RFP also advised that –if the technical proposals are essentially equal, the award will be made on the basis of lowest cost.— Id.The RFP further provided that cost would be evaluated –on the basis of its realism and acceptability to the Government.— Id. For the evaluation of technical proposals, under the construction management factor, offerors were to describe project personnel experience and technical/management approach (including a list of all proposed major subcontractors). Id. at 6. The past performance evaluation factor included a subfactor for corporate project experience (regarding recent projects of similar size and scope) and a less important subfactor for client satisfaction (based on past performance reference responses). Id. at 6-8. For the corporate project experience subfactor, the evaluation was to include the offeror's –experience as a prime contractor, subcontractor or other,— with prime contractor experience being most important. Id. at 3. For the final technical evaluation factor, schedule, the offeror's proposed schedule was to be evaluated for realism and reasonableness. Id. As a matter of background, the agency notes that an initial award that had been made under the RFP was terminated after a successful size status protest; that award had been made on the basis of that firm's higher-rated technical proposal, which also offered a lower price than that offered by AMES. The remaining three technically acceptable proposals were then reevaluated for a new source selection. Strategic's technical proposal was rated lower than AMES's proposal and offered a lower price. A third offeror submitted the highest-rated technically acceptable proposal, and also offered a higher price. Having determined that the price premiums involved in selecting either of the two higher-rated proposals were not warranted in light of the acceptable level of technical competence offered in Strategic's lower-priced proposal, the agency concluded that Strategic's proposal presented the best value to the agency and made an award to the firm.