• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-571-223-6845

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Burchick Construction Company, B-400342.3, April 20, 2009

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • April 20, 2009
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off

Link: GAO Opinion

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs

Disposition: Protest denied.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GAO Digest:

Selection of higher-rated, higher-priced proposal is unobjectionable where the selection official reasonably determined that awardee’s higher technical rating outweighed the protester’s lower price.

General Counsel P.C. Highlight:

Burchick challenges, in general, VA’s evaluation of the firm’s technical proposal, conduct of discussions, and source selection decision. Burchick argues that there are several anomalies regarding the point scoring and that despite two protests, [Burchick] still ha[s] absolutely no idea how the VA arrives at the scores that it has assigned to its technical review. GAO states that ratings, be they numerical, adjectival, or color, are merely guides for intelligent decision-making in the procurement process. Where the evaluators and the source selection official reasonably consider the underlying bases for the ratings, including advantages and disadvantages associated with the specific content of competing proposals, in a manner that is fair and equitable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation, a protester’s disagreement over the actual adjectival, color ratings, or point scores is essentially inconsequential, in that it does not affect the reasonableness of the judgments made in the source selection decision.

Here, the contemporaneous evaluation record shows that the agency qualitatively evaluated the firms’ technical proposals under the solicitation’s evaluation factors, identifying strengths and weaknesses in the firms’ respective proposals. The record also shows that the contracting officer’s judgment as to the technical merit of the competing proposals was not based upon a mechanical comparison of the offerors’ point scores but rather was grounded upon the contracting officer’s consideration of the various strengths and weaknesses identified in the agency’s technical evaluation. Given the contracting officer’s discussion and assessment of the relative advantages and disadvantages associated with the specific content of the offerors’ proposals, GAO finds that Burchick’s disagreement with the point scores assigned to its proposal does not affect the reasonableness of the judgments made in the source selection decision.

Burchick next complains that the VA’s assessment of Burchick’s lack of corporate healthcare construction experience with projects of the Ambulatory Care Center’s type, size and complexity as well as the lack of experience in that area for the projected staff is unreasonable because Burchick’s proposal identified numerous examples of such construction experience. GAO states that it reviews challenges to an agency’s evaluation of proposals only to determine whether the agency acted reasonably and in accord with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. A protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment is not sufficient to establish that an agency acted unreasonably.

Here, GAO finds, from a review of the record, that there is no basis to question the VA’s determination that Burchick had limited construction experience with projects of the type, size and complexity of the ambulatory care center sought by the RFP. Although Burchick identified six projects in its proposal’s discussion of the firm’s corporate project experience, only one of these six projects related to hospital and clinical construction, and that was for an OB/GYN surgery center with a stated cost of $16.8 million. The remaining projects identified in the protester’s proposal were for the construction of a federal office building, a business park, a U.S. Army training center, a multi-purpose academic complex, and a national cemetery. Although Burchick was informed during discussions that the VA found that the firm had limited clinic and hospital construction experience, Burchick identified no further experience in its revised proposal. The record shows that the TEB considered Burchick’s identified experience and found that it demonstrated limited construction experience similar to the project solicited here.

Burchick also disagrees with the VA’s assessment under the construction management factor that the firm had failed to recognize that quality control was Burchick’s responsibility, and not the government’s. This conclusion, according to Burchick, does not take into account the solicitation’s statement that the VA would provide a resident engineer who would conduct surveillance of all construction work to assure compliance with the contract documents, which, according to Burchick, is the very definition of quality control.

GAO finds no merit to Burchick’s arguments in this regard. The RFP provided for the evaluation of an offeror’s quality assurance and quality control plan under the construction management factor; thus clearly placing responsibility for quality assurance and quality control on the contractor. In this regard, the RFP provided that the contractor would be required to furnish all labor and material, equipment, transportation, supervision, coordination and services necessary to perform and complete the contract work. GAO finds that the RFP informed offerors that quality assurance and quality control would be the contractor’s responsibility. Furthermore, GAO finds the protester’s reliance on the agency’s resident engineer to perform quality control to be misplaced. As described by the RFP, the resident engineer is the contracting officer’s authorized on-site representative responsible for protecting the Government’s interest in the execution of the construction contract work. Reviewing a contractor’s work to ensure that it was done in compliance with the contract does not replace the contractor’s own obligation to ensure that work is performed in a quality manner.

Burchick also complains that the VA did not acknowledge Burchick’s identification in its revised proposal of another person who would assist Burchick in implementing its quality assurance/quality control plan. The VA informed Burchick during discussions that the agency had found the firm’s quality assurance/quality control plan to be very generic and did not address a number of things, such as, for example, the testing and inspections, commissioning, preparatory meetings, and quality control of subcontracts. In fact, as the agency informed Burchick during discussions, the VA found that Burchick’s quality control plan for managing the construction project is almost non-existent — it is only a few sentences, and that [a] specific individual is not listed to manage quality control. GAO has no basis from its review of the record to conclude that the agency unreasonably evaluated Burchick’s revised proposal, given that Burchick’s responses to the agency’s discussions were very general and not specifically responsive to the agency’s concerns.

Burchick also complains that the agency did not conduct meaningful discussions with the firm, because the VA did not discuss with Burchick the agency’s concerns regarding [Burchick’s] ability and past performance for On Time Delivery. Burchick contends that, not only did the VA not raise this concern with the firm, but that, in any case, Burchick had never been late completing a project.

Burchick’s arguments are not supported by the record, which shows that Burchick was informed of two weaknesses concerning the firm’s on-time performance. Specifically, the agency brought to Burchick’s attention the firm’s delay in completing some punchlist items according to the Owner’s Evaluation at an identified project, and with regard to a different project that the firm’s missing of milestone dates has been a concern on past projects according to past Owner/Architect evaluations. Burchick’s responses to the agency’s discussion questions did not show that the agency was unreasonably concerned with the firm’s on-time performance. With respect to late performance of punchlist items, Burchick merely stated that it had performed the punchlist items prior to occupancy and these related to design conflicts. With respect to the agency’s other concern with missing milestones, Burchick did not unequivocally state that it had not missed milestones but instead complained that the project was a multi-prime contract delivery system that was not an effective contracting method for this project.

Burchick also complains that the TEB apparently performed extensive follow-up regarding Walsh’s technical proposal, but did not do the same for Burchick. The evaluation panel looked into this and was generally satisfied that the team composition was changed to reflect those concerns. Burchick apparently believes that it has not been equally treated (although GAO does not find that the record establishes that this is so); however, Burchick does not specifically state what if anything it would have done differently if the agency had further followed-up with the firm.

Finally, the protester contends that the contracting officer mechanically compared point scores in selecting Walsh’s proposal for award and did not adequately justify paying the approximately $1.6 million price premium associated with the Walsh’s proposal. The contracting officer did not mechanically evaluate the firms’ proposals using point scoring; rather, she considered the firms’ evaluated strengths and weaknesses in assessing the proposals’ respective technical merit. Where, as here, the RFP allows for a cost/technical tradeoff, the agency retains discretion to select a higher-priced, higher technically rated proposal if doing so is reasonably found to be in the government’s best interest and is consistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation scheme. The contracting officer found the awardee’s evaluated technically superior proposal to outweigh Burchick’s price advantage, and Burchick has not shown this judgment to be unreasonable. The protest is denied

Share

Related Posts

CEdge Software Consultants LLC, B-408203, July 19, 2013

August 12, 2013

Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc., B-408134.3; B-408134.5, July 3, 2013

August 1, 2013

Quest Diagnostics, Inc., B-405081.5, December 19, 2012

June 26, 2013

ABSG Consulting, Inc., B-407956; B-407956.2, April 18, 2013

May 22, 2013

Comments are closed

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Need help with a bid protest?

Call us at: 703-556-0411 Or fill out this form:

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adequately Written Proposal
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • Ambiguity in Solicitation
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Bad Faith in Evaluation
  • Below-Cost Offer
  • Best Value
  • Beyond the Scope
  • Bias
  • Bid and Proposal Costs
  • Bid Bond
  • Bid Compliance
  • Bid Protest Decisions
  • Bid Protest Jurisdiction
  • Bid Protests
  • Bidding Best Practices
  • Blanket Purchase Agreement
  • Blanket Purchase Order
  • Blog Articles
  • Bona Fide Needs Rule
  • Brand Name or Equal
  • Broad Agency Announcement
  • Brooks Act
  • Bundling or Consolidation
  • Buy American Act
  • Cancellation of a Solicitation
  • Capability of Contractor
  • CCR Registration
  • Certificate of Competency (COC)
  • Certification Requirements
  • Changes Clause
  • Clarifications
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Clearly Meritorious Protest
  • Clerical Error
  • Commercial Item Acquisition
  • Competitive Range
  • Compliance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Construction Design-Build
  • Construction Services
  • Contract Administration
  • Contract Modifications
  • Contracting Preference
  • Contractor Responsibility
  • Corporate Capability
  • Corrective Action
  • Cost Accounting System
  • Cost Evaluation
  • Cost Realism
  • Cost Reimbursement Contract
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off
  • Customary Commercial Practice
  • CVE
  • DCAA Audit
  • Debriefing
  • Default Termination
  • Deficient Price Proposal
  • Delivery Order jurisdiction
  • Delivery Schedule
  • Designated Employee Agent
  • Disclosure of Price
  • Disclosure of Source Selection-Sensitive Information
  • Discussions
  • Disqualification
  • Documentation of Evaluation
  • Domestic Production Requirement
  • Education Center Articles
  • Electronic Filing
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Evaluations
  • Events
  • Executive Order Compliance
  • Experience of Contractor
  • Experience Requirement
  • Fair Market Price
  • FASA
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Filing Deadlines
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • GAO Bid Protest Review
  • GAO Jurisdiction
  • GAO Standard of Review
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • In-Sourcing
  • Incentive Fee
  • Inclement Weather Delay
  • Incomplete Proposal
  • Incorporation by Reference
  • Incumbent Capture
  • Incumbent Status
  • Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
  • Individual Environmental Report
  • Industrial Mobilization
  • Innovations
  • Interested Party
  • Invitation for Bid
  • Invited Contractor
  • Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
  • Joint Venture
  • Key Personnel
  • Labor Hours
  • Labor Rate Pricing
  • Late Proposals
  • Late Submissions
  • Level of Effort
  • Licensing Requirements
  • Limitation on Subcontracting
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Lost Proposal
  • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
  • Mail-Box Rule
  • Management Planning
  • Market Research
  • MAS Contracts
  • Material Misrepresentation
  • Material Solicitation Amendment
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • Meaningful Discussions
  • Micro-Purchase Threshold
  • Minimum Requirements
  • Misleading Discussions
  • Mistake
  • Mitigation Strategy
  • Multiple Awards
  • NAICS Code
  • National Security
  • Negotiation
  • News
  • Non-Procurement Instruments
  • Novations
  • Offeror Representations
  • OMB Circular A-76
  • Option Exercise
  • Oral Presentations
  • Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • Page Limitations
  • Past Performance
  • Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
  • Performance Based Standards
  • Permits and Responsibilities
  • Personal Conflicts of Interest
  • Post-Award Changes to the Contract
  • Post-Protest Re-Evaluations
  • Practicable Alternative
  • Pre-Award Protest
  • Pre-award vs. Post-award Requirements
  • Pre-Qualification of Offerors
  • Pre-Solicitation Notice
  • Prejudice
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Evaluation
  • Price of FSS Task Order Quote
  • Price Realism
  • Price Reasonableness
  • Price Reduction
  • Procurement Announcement
  • Procurement Integrity
  • Product Testing
  • Proposal Acceptance Period
  • Proposal Detail
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Proposal Extension
  • Proposal Standards
  • Proposals
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reevaluation
  • Reevaluation Standards
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Remedies
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • Scope of GAO Review
  • SDVOSB Set-Asides
  • Significant Issue Exception
  • Simplified Acquisition Procedures
  • Site Visit
  • Size Determination
  • Size Protest
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
  • Small Business Set-Asides
  • Small Business Subcontracting Goals
  • Sole-Source Award
  • Solicitation Amendment
  • Solicitation Requirements
  • Source Approval
  • Source Selection Authority
  • Source Selection Decision
  • Source Selection Plan
  • Sources Sought Notice
  • Staffing Plan
  • State and Local Requirements
  • Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Subcontract Protest
  • Subcontractor Experience
  • Suspension and Debarment
  • Taking Exception to RFP Requirements
  • Task Orders
  • Teaming Agreement
  • Technical Acceptability
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Unduly Restrictive Terms
  • Unequal Access to Information
  • Unequal Treatment of Offerors
  • Uniform Time Act of 1996
  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria
  • Unusual and Compelling Urgency
  • Use of Appropriated Funds
  • Veterans First
  • VIP Database
  • VOSB Set Asides
  • Wage Determination

Get Help


Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-571-223-6845
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2022 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-571-223-6845