Hi-Way Paving Inc

B-410662 Jan 21, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Hi-Way Paving, Inc., of Hilliard, Ohio, protests the award of a contract to Archer Western, LLC, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N69450-14-R-1261, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast, for repairs and improvements at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Hi-Way Paving, Inc. File: B-410662 Date: January 21, 2015 Dustin P. Keith, Hi-Way Paving, Inc., for the protester. Susan E. Sharp, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Stephanie B. Magnell, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal under the safety factor is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest arguing disparate treatment in the evaluation of the protester’s and awardee’s proposals is denied where, despite inconsistencies in the evaluation record, there is no possibility of prejudice to the protester. 3. Protest challenging the agency’s best-value tradeoff analysis is denied where the agency reasonably found that the awardee’s proposal strengths were worth a price premium. DECISION Hi-Way Paving, Inc., of Hilliard, Ohio, protests the award of a contract to Archer Western, LLC, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N69450-14-R-1261, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast, for repairs and improvements at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida. We deny the protest.[1] BACKGROUND The RFP was issued in March 2014 and sought proposals for a fixed-price contract for airfield renovation and lighting repairs at Naval Air Station Jacksonville. The RFP advised offerors that award would be made on a best-value basis, considering price and five non-price factors: (1) experience, (2) technical solution, (3) safety, (4) small business utilization, and (5) past performance. RFP amend. 0006 at 7. The RFP provided that the first four non-price evaluation factors were of equal importance, and were, when combined, equal in importance to the past performance factor. Id. at 8. For purposes of award, the non-price evaluation factors were “approximately equal” in importance to price. Id. The Navy received proposals from three offerors, including Archer and Hi-Way. Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, Business Clearance Memorandum. The final technical evaluation ratings and prices for Hi-Way and Archer, who were ranked first and second in the selection decision, respectively, were as follows:[2]   ARCHER HI-WAY Overall Rating Outstanding Good Experience Outstanding Good Technical Solution Outstanding Acceptable Safety Outstanding Acceptable Small Business Utilization Acceptable Outstanding Past Performance Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Price $51,900,000 $49,850,000 AR, Tab 5, Business Clearance Memorandum, at 7. The Navy found that Archer’s technically superior proposal justified payment of a 4 percent price premium over Hi-Way’s lower price, and made award to Archer on September 23. AR, Tab 5a, Source Selection Decision, at 1; Contracting Officer’s (CO’s) Statement at 21. On October 9, the agency provided Hi-Way with a telephonic debriefing. Contracting Officer’s (CO’s) Statement at 21. This protest followed. DISCUSSION Hi-Way challenges the Navy’s evaluation of its proposal under the safety factor, regarding its performance record. Hi-Way also challenges the adjectival ratings assigned to both it and the Archer under all of the non-price evaluation factors, alleging that there was an insufficient basis to rate Archer higher for any evaluation factor.[3] Although we find some concerns with agency’s assignment of adjectival ratings, we conclude that none of these errors provides a basis to sustain the protest. The evaluation of an offeror’s proposal is a matter within the agency’s discretion. IPlus, Inc., B-298020, B-298020.2, June 5, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 90 at 7, 13. In reviewing a protest against an agency’s evaluation of proposals, our Office will not reevaluate proposals but instead will examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. See Shumaker Trucking & Excavating Contractors, Inc., B-290732, Sept. 25, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 169 at 3.