Global Engineering & Construction Joint Venture

B-275999.3 Feb 19, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights May refuse the request if it is not in the "best interests of the Government" to conduct a debriefing at that time. The debriefing must be held no later than the time post- award debriefings are held. General Accounting Office (GAO) will not review an agency's decision in a particular procurement that. It is in the government's best interests to delay the debriefing until after award. The excluded offeror will be entitled to a post-award debriefing. Will have the opportunity to file a bid protest at GAO (and obtain a stay of performance) if it so desires. It will not be relevant to GAO's review that the protest is filed after award. The Corps advised Global that the firm's proposal was excluded from the competitive range by letter of January 2. View Decision Matter of: Global Engineering & Construction Joint Venture File: B-275999.3 Date: February 19, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Global Engineering & Construction Joint Venture protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under Army Corps of Engineers request for proposals No. DACA87-96-R-0025. We dismiss the protest. The Corps advised Global that the firm's proposal was excluded from the competitive range by letter of January 2, 1997, and Global immediately requested a debriefing pursuant to 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2305(b) (1994), as amended by section 4104 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-106, 110 Stat. 186, 644 (1996), and implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 15.1005 (FAC 90-44, 61 Fed. Reg. 69288, 69290, Dec. 31, 1996). The statute requires that a contracting officer "make every effort" to provide an excluded offeror a timely requested preaward debriefing "as soon as practicable," but permits the contracting officer to refuse the request if it is not in the "best interests of the Government" to conduct a debriefing at that time; in that case, the debriefing must be held no later than the time post-award debriefings are held. The Corps denied Global's request, stating that preaward debriefings in the procurement would not be in the government's best interest, and adding that such debriefing would at a minimum require redirecting the agency's resources, "which would not best serve our customers' needs or be a wise expenditure of U.S. tax dollars." Global disputes the Corps' conclusion about the government's best interests. Global states that after award the firm likely will protest its exclusion from the competitive range successfully on issues that could have been resolved before award, and that the agency therefore may well have to terminate any awarded contract or reimburse Global proposal preparation costs. Global argues: "Accordingly, the Agency's denial of Global's request is really in the worst interest of the Government because there will likely be upheaval of a completed procurement process, a protest that will take 100 days to resolve and a remedy that will likely require the Agency to terminate the contract for convenience. Thus, it will cost the United States far more tax dollars to resolve this issue post-award than it will to resolve it preaward." Global also argues that the best use of government resources would be to debrief Global now rather than allow the evaluation information "to become stale, proceed with a costly procurement process and then be required to re-conduct a procurement to include Global in the competitive range. Resources need not be redirected. . . ." In Global's view, permitting the Corps to delay a debriefing would compromise the aim of much of the recent procurement reform effort to avoid unwarranted protests by promoting the early exchange of information between excluded offerors and contracting agencies. The arguments Global makes all are valid reasons why preaward debriefings should be encouraged no matter what the procurement circumstances. For example, the honest exchange of information in a preaward debriefing may well obviate the need for, or discourage, a bid protest; competitive range evaluation results for excluded offerors always are "fresher" in the preaward than in the postaward timeframe; and since a protest potentially could result in a disruption to correct a procurement deficiency it generally would be better to correct the problem at an earlier time whenever possible. Nevertheless, we will not review the Corps' determination that it is not in the government's best interest to provide preaward debriefings in this procurement. In adding the preaward debriefing requirement to 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2305 through section 4104 of the Clinger-Cohen Act the Congress also expressly recognized that it may not be in the government's best interests to conduct a debriefing until after award.