Skip to main content

B-246824, Apr 1, 1992

B-246824 Apr 01, 1992
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

General Accounting Office will not object to evaluation of technical and cost proposals where review of evaluation records shows that evaluation was fair and reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the solicitation. 2. Although solicitation provided that technical factors were more important than cost. Contracting officer reasonably determined that there was no significant technical difference between proposals and that award to lower cost offeror would be most advantageous to the government. That cost could become the determinative selection factor if a technically superior proposal was deemed not to be worth any cost premium. The technical factors and subfactors and their weights in the evaluation were as follows: 1.

View Decision

B-246824, Apr 1, 1992

DIGEST: 1. General Accounting Office will not object to evaluation of technical and cost proposals where review of evaluation records shows that evaluation was fair and reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the solicitation. 2. Although solicitation provided that technical factors were more important than cost, agency properly made award to technically lower rated, lower cost offeror instead of higher cost, higher technically rated offeror, since solicitation provided for cost/technical trade off, and contracting officer reasonably determined that there was no significant technical difference between proposals and that award to lower cost offeror would be most advantageous to the government.

Attorneys

General Offshore Corporation:

General Offshore Corporation (GOC) protests the award of a contract to Seaward Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N60921 91-R- 0101, issued by the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NAVSWC) for engineering and technical support of a weapons testing range at NAVSWC's Fort Lauderdale, Florida facility. GOC, the incumbent contractor, alleges that the Navy failed to make a proper cost/technical trade-off in selecting a lower priced, lower technically rated offeror for award.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation contemplated award of a time and materials-type contract for a base year and 3 option years. The RFP stated that technical factors would be more important than cost in the evaluation, but that cost could become the determinative selection factor if a technically superior proposal was deemed not to be worth any cost premium. The technical factors and subfactors and their weights in the evaluation were as follows:

1. Corporate experience and capabilities (25%) 2. Test support-- range operation and maintenance (20%) 3. Personnel qualifications (18%) 4. Vessel and aircraft charter (15%) 5. Vessel repair and maintenance (10%) 6. Facilities and equipment (7%) 7. Support of visiting Navy vessels (5%)

Four firms submitted initial proposals by the closing date. Following the initial evaluation by the technical evaluation board (TEB), all four proposals were determined to be approximately technically equal, although GOC received the highest technical score. After discussions were held and best and final offers (BAFO) received from all offerors, GOC remained the highest ranked offeror technically, but Seaward offered the lowest price. Therefore, the TEB analyzed the proposals and evaluation results to determine whether the difference in technical scores reflected any difference in technical ability, and to make a "best value" determination. The TEB found that Seaward's lower score was a product of its status as a relatively new company, as compared to GOC's status as the incumbent, and concluded that there was no real technical difference between the proposals.

The TEB therefore recommended to the contracting officer that award be made to Seaward. The contracting officer concurred that GOC's 9 percent higher technical score did not represent any actual technical superiority over Seaward, but instead reflected its status as the incumbent, and concluded that this incumbency advantage was not worth the 1.6 percent price premium. On this basis, the contracting officer recommended to the Contract Review Board that award be made to Seaward] the review board accepted the recommendation. Upon receiving notification of the award, GOC filed this protest.

GOC contends that the technical evaluation was flawed and that the record does not provide a reasonable basis for the agency's cost/technical trade- off decision. First, GOC asserts that the record does not support the evaluators' conclusion that GOC's high technical score did not reflect any actual technical superiority. In this regard, GOC maintains that the individual evaluation worksheets show that the evaluators considered GOC's proposal superior to all the others, primarily because of its experience as the incumbent contractor. In addition, GOC contends that the evaluators overstated Seaward's scores under certain evaluation factors, and that its proposal actually was even more superior to Seaward's than its scores suggested. GOC concludes that the agency's ultimate decision that its proposal was technically equal to Seaward's ignored GOC's superior experience and corresponding technical advantage, and resulted in an improper decision that GOC's higher scored proposal was not worth the higher cost. In view of the alleged improprieties in the technical evaluation and the support in the record for its higher technical score based on its incumbency, GOC argues, the agency's cost/technical trade off decision in favor of Seaward was improper.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION

GOC's challenge to the evaluation primarily concerns the most important evaluation factor, corporate experience. First, GOC notes that it has performed the test range support function at the Fort Lauderdale facility since 1980, while Seaward has little actual experience in test range support. In addition, GOC contends that the evaluators improperly gave Seaward credit under this factor for the experience of its president, who had been the project manager for the test range support contract from 1980 through 1987 while employed by GOC. GOC maintains that since the RFP called for evaluation of personnel under a separate factor, it was improper for the evaluators to consider the experience of GOC's president under the corporate experience factor. GOC concludes that Seaward's score for the experience subfactor of the corporate experience factor-- 82.5 out of 100 possible points, compared to GOC's score of 90-- was unreasonably high. The evaluation of proposals and the determination of their relative merits is primarily the function of the procuring agency, since it is the agency that is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them, and must bear the burden of any difficulties resulting from a defective evaluation. Dimensions Travel Co., B-224214, Jan. 13, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 52. In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, therefore, we examine the record only to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord with the evaluation criteria listed in the RFP. Taft Broadcasting Corp., B-222818, July 29, 1986, 86-2 CPD Para. 125. A protester's mere disagreement with an agency's conclusions does not render them unreasonable. ESCO, Inc., 66 Comp.Gen. 404 (1987), 87-1 CPD Para. 450. As discussed below, the record establishes that the agency's technical evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.

Our review of the evaluation documents shows that the evaluators were aware that Seaward does not have the extensive test range support experience that GOC has. However, the evaluators also recognized that the firm has broad experience in the performance of tasks comparable to those required here, including deep water range operations, facilities planning, and ocean engineering. Our review of Seaward's proposal supports this conclusion. More importantly, the evaluators noted that Seaward's president was GOC's project manager for the test range support contract from 1980 through 1987. While GOC is correct that it generally is improper to consider personnel experience under a corporate experience factor where there are separate evaluation factors for each, Washington State Comm'n for Vocational Educ.-- Recon., 64 Comp.Gen. 681 (1985), 85-2 CPD Para. 59, we think the agency's consideration of the experience of Seaward's president under the institutional experience subfactor of the corporate experience factor was consistent with the RFP. In this regard, the RFP designated two subfactors under the personnel qualifications factor, engineering and technical/skilled labor. The evaluation of these subfactors was to address the education, experience and capabilities of "key engineering personnel" and "technical/skilled personnel." Since the personnel evaluation thus was limited to consideration of these personnel, there was no way for the agency to evaluate the extensive experience of Seaward's president under this factor. Moreover, we specifically have held that in evaluating the experience of a new business such as this one, an agency may consider the experience of supervisory personnel. See LD Research Corp., B-230912.3, Sept. 9, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 223] Data Flow Corp. et al., B-209444 et al., July 6, 1983, 83-2 CPD Para. 57. conclude that the agency properly considered the extensive experience of Seaward's president in awarding the firm a relatively high score for its institutional experience under the corporate experience and test support factors.

COST/TECHNICAL TRADE-OFF

GOC notes that it scored higher than SSI under all seven evaluation factors, particularly in the three most important areas-- corporate experience, test support, and personnel qualifications. GOC contends that, contrary to the Navy's view, its higher scores reflect actual technical superiority. In view of this technical superiority and the evaluation scheme's emphasis on technical capability, GOC asserts that the Navy did not have a valid basis for its decision to make award to a lower rated offeror at an "insignificant" cost saving of 1.6 percent. GOC argues further that the award decision is improper because the record does not adequately document the basis for the Navy's cost/technical trade-off decision. In this regard, GOC cites language in the TEB's and contracting officer's recommendations stating that all of the offerors, including Seaward, were "competent," and that their proposals were "satisfactory" and "acceptable." GOC concludes that the Navy's determination that Seaward is capable of performing the contract is not a sufficient basis to forego GOC's technical advantage and make award based on price.

Notwithstanding a solicitation's emphasis on technical factors, an agency properly may award to a lower priced, lower technically scored offeror if it decides that the cost premium involved in awarding to a higher rated, higher priced offeror is not justified given the acceptable level of technical competence available at the lower cost. Dayton T. Brown, Inc., B-229664, Mar. 30, 1988, 88-1 CPD Para. 321. The determining element is not the difference in technical merit, per se, but the contracting agency's judgment concerning the significance of that difference. Id. A contracting agency properly may find that a significant difference in technical scores does not represent a corresponding difference in technical merit, and make award based on cost. M. Rosenblatt & Sons, B-230026; B-230026.3, Apr. 26, 1988, 88-1 CPD Para. 409. In this regard, we consistently have stated that evaluation scores are merely guides for the selection official, who must use his judgment to determine what the technical difference between competing proposals might mean to contract performance, and who must consider what it would cost to take advantage of it. Grey Advertising, Inc., 55 Comp.Gen. 1111 (1976), 76-1 CPD Para. 325. The relevant considerations in such a case are whether the award decision was reasonable in light of the RFP evaluation scheme, and whether the selection official adequately documented the basis for his selection. Dayton T. Brown, Inc., supra; DynCorp, 71 Comp.Gen. 129 (1991), 91-2 CPD Para. 575.

The evaluation record, including the individual evaluators' scoresheets and the evaluation summaries, supports the TEB's conclusion, and the contracting officer's concurrence, that GOC's and Seaward's proposals were essentially technically equal. In particular, the TEB cited four evaluation factors where Seaward scored lower than the other offerors, explaining in each case why Seaward's lower score did not reflect material technical inferiority. We discuss each below.

Corporate Experience

Under this most important evaluation factor, the TEB considered Seaward's experience to be directly applicable to the RFP requirements, primarily based on Seaward's president's long-term experience in managing GOC's predecessor contracts and the firm's related experience in range operations and maintenance. The evaluators particularly liked Seaward's management plan, noting its similarity to the approach GOC had used successfully under the predecessor contracts, and found its organizational response mechanism to be "detailed and clear." In concluding that Seaward's lower score in this area did not reflect any technical inferiority, the TEB stated that Seaward "has demonstrated a clear understanding of the effort and has proposed a detailed plan for providing support that leaves absolutely no doubt about their ability to perform exceptionally, even though their corporation is young." GOC's disagreement with the TEB's conclusion does not provide us with any basis to question it. ESCO, Inc., supra.

Test Support

Under this factor, ranked second in importance, the evaluators found that Seaward's proposal demonstrated a thorough understanding of, and approach to, the RFP's technical requirements. The evaluators also noted that while Seaward as a firm was somewhat lacking in engineering experience, its proposed personnel had the required capabilities. Moreover, the firm was found to have "very good" experience in range operation and maintenance. In its determination that Seaward's proposal was technically equal to those of the other offerors, the TEB noted that while Seaward had been downgraded due to its inexperience as a firm, its proposal established its ability to perform successfully based on its employees' experience and its understanding of the requirements. While GOC's proposal was considered very strong in this area, the evaluation comments show that this was primarily due to its experience as the incumbent; the comments do not establish that GOC possessed any superior technical ability.

Personnel Qualifications

Under the third most important factor, the evaluators found Seaward's personnel to have the required capabilities and "directly applicable" experience that is "closely matched to their jobs"; the firm's proposed project management staff was found to have particularly strong credentials. Although the evaluators downgraded Seaward because some of its personnel were applicants rather than employees, they ultimately concluded that this was not a technical disadvantage but instead was a factor of Seaward's youth and small size. The record provides us no basis to find otherwise. For evaluation factor (A), the protester also objects to the agency's criticisms that the protester strictly listed its prior experience and awards, that the protester had no foreign language skills, and that the protester had primarily corporate, as opposed to museum, clients. Our review of the record raises some concerns about the agency's evaluation in these areas. However, since the protester was properly found unacceptable in other areas for evaluation factor (A), we find that any errors in evaluating the above-referenced areas did not significantly impact the evaluation and will not be addressed. See Hughes Technical Servs. Co., B-245546.3, Feb. 12, 1992, 92-1 CPD Para. ***-- .

We note that the protester was particularly concerned that Wentworth did not have a historical expert on its production team as required by the solicitation. In its proposal, Wentworth explained that while it did not propose a specific historical expert, it did calculate into its price consultation fees for a historical expert during production of the film. Wentworth's failure to propose a historical expert was recognized by the agency as an exception taken by Wentworth to the solicitation requirements. However, the solicitation stated that fully explained exceptions to the statement of work would not automatically cause a proposal to be found unacceptable. The agency evaluated Wentworth's alternative approach to using a historical expert as acceptable based on Wentworth's past performance using consultants in the respective fields for which it was producing a film.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs