ST Aerospace Engines Pte. Ltd., B-275725.3, October 17, 1997

B-275725.3 Oct 17, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Discussions are reopened after offerors' prices have been revealed. If offerors are allowed to revise their technical proposals. That another offeror whose proposal was in the competitive range had experienced the same lack of opportunity to discuss past performance as the protester. The agency did not have a valid offer from it. That its offer was therefore excluded from the competitive range. The agency argues that STA Engines' protest is untimely since STA Engines was informed of the agency decision to reopen discussions with. Our Bid Protest Regulations require that protests based on other than solicitation improprieties be filed within 10 days after the basis of protest is. Or should have been. View Decision Matter of: ST Aerospace Engines Pte. Ltd. File: B-275725.3 Date: October 17, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION ST Aerospace Engines Pte. Ltd. (STA Engines) protests the decision of the U.S. Coast Guard to reopen technical discussions with, but not to allow the submission of revised price proposals from, all competitive range offerors under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTCG38-94-R-30006, for the overhaul and repair of C-130 T56 engine reduction gearboxes and torquemeters. The protester contends that, if offerors are allowed to revise their technical proposals, they should also be allowed to revise their prices. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 19, 1997, we sustained a protest by STA Engines against award under this solicitation to Standard Aero Ltd., whose proposal had been selected as representing the best value to the government. ST Aerospace Engines Pte. Ltd., B-275725, Mar. 19, 1997, 97-1 CPD Para. 161. We found that the agency had improperly downgraded STA Engines' proposal, to its competitive prejudice, based on past performance information [1] pertaining to one of its affiliates, ST Aerospace Systems, without clarifying the relationship between the companies and without affording STA Engines an opportunity to comment on the information during discussions. We recommended that the agency reopen discussions with STA Engines to clarify the extent of involvement of STA Systems in its proposed effort, and that it then solicit another round of best and final offers (BAFO) and evaluate them to determine which offer represented the best combination of technical merit and price. STA Engines subsequently requested that we modify our decision to delete the recommendation for another round of BAFOs. The protester argued that a reopening of the price competition would create the risk of an auction since offerors' prices had been disclosed by the agency during the debriefing process; it also argued that the impropriety could otherwise be remedied without impairment to the integrity of the procurement process by limiting the scope of reopened negotiations. We agreed with the protester, and, accordingly, modified our decision to recommend that discussions with the protester be confined to clarifying the extent of involvement of STA Systems in STA Engines' proposed effort (i.e., that the protester not be allowed to revise other aspects of its technical proposal or its price), and that a new BAFO then be solicited from STA Engines only. The agency decided to reopen discussions addressing past performance issues with all offerors in the competitive range and to solicit BAFOs from all addressing this area only. The contracting officer explains, in responding to the protest, that another offeror whose proposal was in the competitive range had experienced the same lack of opportunity to discuss past performance as the protester, and that to remedy this error and to ensure maximum fairness to all competitors, he had determined that our recommendation should be expanded. By letter dated June 12, the contracting officer advised offerors that discussions bearing on past performance would be reopened and that they could submit updated past performance information, but that they would not be permitted to revise other aspects of their technical proposals or their prices. The letter also asked offerors to revalidate their offers (which had expired), and advised them that if they had not done so by June 20, the offers would not be considered during the reevaluation process. STA Engines responded to the agency's communication by letter dated June 20. The protester objected to the agency decision to reopen discussions with all offerors in the competitive range, but stated that it would participate in the competition if the agency would allow offerors to revise their prices as well as their technical proposals.