Christie Constructors, Inc.

Christie Constructors, Inc. BNUMBER: B-271759; B-271759.2 DATE: July 23, 1996 TITLE: Christie Constructors, Inc. ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Christie Constructors, Inc. File: B-271759; B-271759.2 Date:July 23, 1996 Hiram S. Dillin, Esq., and David J. Bader, Esq., Dillin & Bader, Inc., for the protester. Justin P. Patterson, Esq., and James L. Weiner, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Andrew T. Pogany, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. In reviewing an agency's evaluation, the General Accounting Office will not reevaluate proposals but instead will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. An offeror is responsible for providing a full discussion of its technical approach and methodology within the four corners of the proposal. 2. Protests based upon alleged solicitation improprieties which are apparent prior to the time set for receipt of initial proposals must be filed prior to the initial closing. Protesters do not have the option of simply making unilateral assumptions regarding the meaning of conflicting or patently ambiguous provisions in a solicitation and then expect relief when the agency does not act in the manner the protester assumed. 3. In the absence of a timely objection to the solicitation's award methodology, award may be made consistent with the agency's reasonable interpretation of the request for proposal award provisions. DECISION Christie Constructors, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range and the award of a contract to Dillingham Construction N.A., Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1425-6-SP-20-03730, issued by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California for the installation of a new spillway gate and repair of seven other gates at Folsom Dam, California. The agency excluded Christie's proposal because it did not contain sufficient technical information to substantiate Christie's ability to accomplish the RFP requirements. We deny the protest. This contract was the last of four contracts awarded by the agency on an emergency basis following the failure of spillway gate No. 3 in July 1995, a failure that resulted in the uncontrolled release of water into the American River which endangered downstream communities.[1] Accordingly, because gate failures could occur in the absence of additional repairs under reasonably foreseeable storm conditions, the agency executed a Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition (J&A), pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sec. 6.302-2, and solicited offers only from eight pre-selected construction firms, including the protester and Dillingham.[2] The RFP, issued March 12, 1996, required the submission of initial proposals by April 9; as stated above, because of the urgent nature of the work, the agency contemplated making an immediate award after receipt of initial proposals. In fact, the RFP itself stated that "[i]t is anticipated that the Notice to Proceed for [the work] will be issued on April 15, 1996."[3] The RFP contemplated a fixed-price contract and stated that award would be made to either "the lowest price 'acceptable' offer[or] or [to an] acceptable offer[or], the price or cost of which is not the lowest, but which is sufficiently more advantageous than the lowest price [offeror] so as to justify the payment of higher price or cost."[4] The RFP, among other things, required that technical proposals address: (1) safety provisions for workers; (2) list of major equipment and key support equipment to be used; (3) procedures to maintain access to the seven existing gates through completion of each phase of construction; (4) procedures to install the new gate, including, as a minimum, a brief discussion of the sequence of frame construction; (5) containment of hazardous materials; (6) procedures for rotating the "trunnion pins"; (7) procedures for maintaining the required openings of Folsom Dam Road; (8) a preliminary bar chart showing the construction sequencing, durations, including start and finish dates, for 25 schedule items listed in the RFP; and (8) personnel resumes. Section M of the RFP also advised offerors as follows: "Notice is given of the possibility that an award may be made after receipt of initial proposals without further discussions or negotiations.