Basile, Baumann, Prost & Associates, Inc.

B-274870 Jan 10, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The goal of RPI is to cause private developers to lease property at selected Corps water resource projects. Basile was awarded contract No. A sole source procurement was not approved. A number of proposals were submitted on April 23 in response to the RFP. Although some proposals were considered technically acceptable. One of the cost evaluators determined that Basile was the only offeror that appeared to fully understand the RFP requirements. [1] this evaluator noticed that Basile's proposed price was nearly identical to the government estimate. She also noticed that Basile proposed prices for optional items which were not in the RFP. Which were in the government estimate. An investigation was conducted by the Army's Criminal Investigation Command. View Decision Matter of: Basile, Baumann, Prost & Associates, Inc. File: B-274870 Date: January 10, 1997 Agency properly excluded a firm from competing under a solicitation where the firm has an organizational conflict of interest with respect to competing under that solicitation because it prepared the statement of work and cost estimate which the agency used for the solicitation. Attorneys DECISION Basile, Baumann, Prost & Associates, Inc. (Basile) protests the elimination of its proposal from consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACW31-96-R-0028, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore, Maryland District, for services to develop and implement a private sector outreach program for the Recreational Partnerships Initiative (RPI). We deny the protest. The RFP identified seven potential sites for the RPI, and requested prices for 14 separate tasks to develop and implement the program. The goal of RPI is to cause private developers to lease property at selected Corps water resource projects, and to develop and operate public recreation facilities on these properties at no cost to the government. In 1992, Basile was awarded contract No. DACW31-92-C-0097 by the Corps, under which Basile assessed the potential for recreational development at each of 460 sites, ranked the sites according to development potential, prepared development feasibility reports for 38 of these sites, and prepared an implementation strategy for successfully realizing the current potential for private sector recreation development. In 1994, the Corps considered modifying Basile's contract to include the services solicited under the current RFP. At the request of the contracting officer's representative (COR), Basile submitted a proposed statement of work (SOW) and cost estimate for such a modification. The SOW identified 25 tasks to be performed by either the contractor or the government. The cost estimate provided the estimated cost for each of the tasks to be performed by the contractor--14 tasks in all--as well as for three "additional items." The Corps determined not to modify the 1992 contract to include these services. The COR then prepared a memorandum requesting that the services be acquired from Basile using sole source procedures. This memo included an SOW with the same 25 tasks identified by Basile using Basile's SOW almost verbatim. The memo also included a government cost estimate which stated the same estimates as Basile's estimate had stated for 13 of 14 of the contractor's tasks and within $100 for the remaining task. The government estimate also included the three additional items at the same cost as estimated by Basile. A sole source procurement was not approved. The Corps instead determined that this need should be satisfied through full and open competition and, on March 4, 1996, issued the current RFP. The RFP contemplated award of a firm, fixed-price contract. The SOW in the RFP identified the same 25 tasks almost verbatim from Basile's earlier SOW. The schedule of prices listed 15 contract line items--one for each of the 14 tasks to be performed by the contractor and one for total price. A number of proposals were submitted on April 23 in response to the RFP. The agency's technical evaluators evaluated the proposals and determined that, although some proposals were considered technically acceptable, only Basile submitted an "outstanding" proposal. One of the cost evaluators determined that Basile was the only offeror that appeared to fully understand the RFP requirements. Upon requesting the government estimate, [1] this evaluator noticed that Basile's proposed price was nearly identical to the government estimate. She also noticed that Basile proposed prices for optional items which were not in the RFP, but which were in the government estimate. An investigation was conducted by the Army's Criminal Investigation Command. It was determined that the COR had used Basile's SOW for the description of the 25 tasks in the RFP's SOW, and its cost estimate for the government cost estimate with only a minor adjustment.