February 19, 1997

P.S. Protest No. 96-23

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACTING, INC.

Solicitation No. 082530-96-A-0154

Decision

Environmental Contracting, Inc., (ECI) protests the award of a contract for window replacement to Mill City Construction, Inc.

Solicitation 082530-96-A-0154 for the replacement of windows at the Newport, RI, post office was issued July 25, 1996, by the Windsor, CT, Facilities Service Office. Section M.1 of the solicitation provided that award would be made "to the responsible offeror whose proposal . . . offers the best value to the Postal Service, considering price, price-related factors, and other evaluation factors specified elsewhere in this solicitation."

The solicitation contained a "contractor’s qualification package" consisting of forms on which offerors were to provide information about themselves; the second page of the solicitation provided, in part, as follows:

Four offers were received and evaluated. ECI proposed to perform the work for the lowest price, $664,000, and thus received the full 50 points for the price factor. It received a technical score of 57 points for a total score of 107 points. Mill City, which offered the second lowest price, $673,000, received 49.3 price points. It received a technical score of 89 points for a total score of 138 points. The other two offerors’ scores fell between those of Mill City and ECI.

ECI’s protest contends that it was entitled to the contract as the "low bidder" which was also "the most qualified contractor/bidder." Further, it questions the Postal Service’s ability to make an affirmative determination of Mill City’s responsibility or to rate it higher technically than ECI, contending that it "has no operating facility, but rather is operated out of the home of one of its principals"; and questioning whether Mill City has provided proof of adequate environmental insurance.

The contracting officer’s statement on the protest includes the following summaries of the evaluations of ECI and Mill City:

With respect to the protest’s other contentions, the contracting officer notes that Mill City has a corporate office which is not its principal’s residence, but that the existence of its facility is irrelevant, since the solicitation included no requirement for the offeror to have an operating facility. Further, Mill City provided all necessary proofs of insurance.

Finally, the contracting officer notes that since the protester was ranked fourth of the four proposals received, it lacks standing to raise this protest, since even if the protest were sustained, it would not be entitled to award.

The protester submitted further comments, dated January 6, rebutting the contracting officer’s characterization of its submission, and raising new contentions about the adequacy of Mill City’s submissions based on its review of Mill City’s contractor qualification package. The submission included the following points:

• ECI did demonstrate the ability to run a phased project, did provide quality program information, did break down project control, and has "an excellent safety record and program."

• Mill City improperly received higher point scores for company organization than ECI despite its failure to complete the company organization, scheduling, and project staffing portions of the form.

• Mill City’s subcontractor did not have a certified lead abatement contractor’s license.

• The Postal Service improperly relied on past postal experience with Mill City, rather than on the contents of Mill City’s qualification statement, in evaluating Mill City’s ability.

• The evaluation of offers was performed too quickly, in that all offers were evaluated within one day after offers were received; the evaluators failed to contract any of ECI’s references, even though it made the lowest offer.

Discussion

We first address the issue of ECI’s standing to challenge the evaluation of Mill City’s offer. The contracting officer is correct that ECI, the fourth-ranked offeror, which has raised no challenge to the evaluation of the second- and third-ranked offerors, lacks standing to challenge any improprieties in the evaluation of the first-ranked offer.

A previous decision explained the basis for this conclusion:

Rickenbacker Port Authority and The Turner Corporation, P.S. Protest No. 91-78, February 10, 1992.

However, to the extent that ECI is challenging the evaluation of its own offer, it has standing. Mid Pacific Air Corporation, P.S. Protest No. 92-62, November 23, 1992. Accordingly, we turn to that aspect of the protest.

Daniel J. Keating Construction Company P.S. Protest No. 89-92, March 1, 1990 (citations omitted).

The contracting officer’s summary of the evaluation of ECI’s proposal noted its failure to identify previous projects of similar dollar value to the Newport project, to demonstrate the ability to run a phased project, to provide any detail on its quality program, or to "break down project control." In its comments on the contracting officer’s report, ECI contends that its proposal did adequately address these last three items, although it did not point to any specifics of its submission in that regard.

We have reviewed ECI’s submission, and cannot conclude that the evaluators acted arbitrarily in finding that it did not fully address the evaluation factors of project phasing, quality control, and project control.

CIR Industrial Automation, Inc., P.S. Protest No. 95-47, April 29, 1996 (citations and internal quotations omitted).

The protest is dismissed in part and denied in part.

William J. Jones
Senior Counsel
Contract Protests and Polices