American Combustion Industries, Inc.

B-275057.2 Mar 05, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Contention that awardee's proposal offered noncompliant equipment and had to be rejected is denied where the record. The agency's request that the offerors identify the sources for certain key pieces of equipment prior to award was an act of contract administration begun in advance of award to streamline the eventual approval of the needed equipment. Contention that agency was required to advise protester of concerns about an individual the agency perceived was being offered as the project manager is sustained where the record shows that: (1) neither the initial proposal nor the best and final offer indicated that the individual would be the project manager. (2) the agency concluded that an individual it believed to be poorly qualified was being substituted because the project manager identified in the proposal was unavailable on the day the agency held oral discussions. View Decision Matter of: American Combustion Industries, Inc. File: B-275057.2 Date: March 5, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys 19970305 DECISION American Combustion Industries, Inc. (ACI) protests the award of a contract to Green Contracting Company, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 52SBNB6C9165, issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Commerce, for two boilers and a structure to house those boilers. ACI argues that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions; failed to reasonably evaluate proposals; wrongly awarded to Green given Green's proposed use of an unapproved boiler; and improperly relied on past performance information about ACI provided by a competitor with a conflict of interest. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND Issued on July 15, 1996, the RFP here sought all labor, equipment and material for the supply and installation of two 82,000 pounds per hour boilers--and construction of an addition to an existing building to house the boilers--for the NIST facility in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The RFP anticipated award of a fixed-price construction contract to the offeror whose proposal's "technical/price relationship is most advantageous to the government." RFP Sec. M.3. Section M.4 of the RFP set forth six technical evaluation factors, which were assigned the following specific evaluation weights: 1. Past Performance on Building Construction 30 percent 2. Past Performance on Phased Refurbishing 20 percent 3. Past Performance of Personnel 20 percent 4. Past Performance of Construction Schedule Adherence 10 percent 5. Critical Path Method 10 percent 6. Quality Control Plan 10 percent Under each factor, evaluators assigned a score between 1 and 10, which was then multiplied by the relative weight for that factor to produce a maximum total score of 1,000 points. As shown above, past performance--in one form or another--accounted for 80 percent of the available points in the technical evaluation. The construction specifications appended to the RFP stated that "[t]he boilers shall be a Babcock and Wilcox Model FM, Nebraska, Volcano packaged watertube boiler or an approved equal." Specification for the Boiler Capacity Upgrade Construction, section 15554, Para. 2.2.1.1. The RFP did not require offerors to identify a boiler in their proposals, and no provision in the evaluation scheme anticipated an assessment of an offeror's boiler selection. In addition, the RFP's pricing schedule sought only a total price for the labor, construction, and equipment necessary to install the boilers; there was no requirement to separately price the boiler equipment offered. Five proposals were received by the closing date of August 16. Upon completion of an initial review, the contracting officer determined that only two of the proposals--those submitted by ACI and Green--were within the competitive range. Both the ACI and Green proposals received relatively high initial scores and were very close in price. By letters dated August 20, the contracting officer asked both ACI and Green to participate in "clarifications/discussions" of their proposals. Both offerors were asked to provide written answers to certain questions by August 23, and both were requested to participate in oral discussions on August 27. The agency's August 20 letters asked the offerors to identify the manufacturer and model number of the boilers (as well as four other items) to be installed. In response, ACI identified for installation either a Nebraska Boiler Company, Model NS-E-77 boiler, or a Babcock and Wilcox Company, Model FM 103-97 boiler. Green identified an English Boiler & Tube, Inc., Model APP-80-250 boiler. Both companies provided their responses prior to the oral discussions. During oral discussions, agency representatives told Green that the identified English boiler was not an approved product and advised Green to substitute another boiler.