Global Engineering & Construction Joint Venture, B-275999.4;

Global Engineering & Construction Joint Venture, B-275999.4; BNUMBER: B-275999.4; B-275999.5 DATE: October 6, 1997 TITLE: Global Engineering & Construction Joint Venture, B-275999.4; B-275999.5, October 6, 1997 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:Global Engineering & Construction Joint Venture File: B-275999.4; B-275999.5 Date:October 6, 1997 Joan K. Fiorino, Esq., and Donald E. Barnhill, Esq., East & Barnhill, for the protester. Laura J. Mann, Esq., and Alan M. Grayson, Esq., Alan M. Grayson and Associates, for Syska & Hennessy, Inc., and Robert J. Symon, Esq., and Douglas L. Patin, Esq., Spriggs & Hollingsworth, for John J. Kirlin, Inc., intervenors. Steven Feldman, Esq., and Craig R. Schmauder, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that contracting agency's evaluation and subsequent exclusion from the competitive range of protester's proposal were improper is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation factors; protester's allegations that the agency misunderstood certain aspects of its proposal to its detriment are not supported by the record. 2. Supplemental protest that contracting agency improperly solicited for construction services but, in its evaluation, improperly converted the solicitation into one for design services is dismissed as untimely where the protester was provided sufficient information in its written debriefing document to include this specific allegation in its initial protest, but failed to raise the matter until nearly 1 month later. DECISION Global Engineering & Construction Joint Venture protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA87-96-R-0025, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of equipment and systems at government medical and other facilities nationwide. Global contends that the evaluation and subsequent exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range were improper. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND The Army issued this solicitation to satisfy its need for quick response in cases where government medical and other facilities require repair or renewal relating to mechanical, electrical, instrumentation, security, safety, architectural, structural, and civil efforts. The RFP anticipated the award of multiple indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts under a mixed restricted/full and open competition procedure. The non-set-aside awards, at issue here, were valued at $50 million for the base year and for each of four option years. Offerors were required to submit proposals consisting of separate technical, management, past performance, contract pricing data, and subcontracting plan volumes. Awards would be made to the offerors whose proposals were most advantageous to the government, considering five evaluation factors corresponding to the separate proposal volumes. The equally important technical, management, and past performance factors were to be point-scored, with a maximum score of 60 points for each factor. The contract pricing data factor, which was less important than the first three factors, was to be evaluated as to reasonableness and affordability. The subcontracting plan factor, the least important of the five, was to be point-scored, with a maximum score of 20 points. Nine offerors submitted proposals by the October 30, 1996, closing date. After the individual evaluation board members evaluated each proposal, the board arrived at a consensus evaluation which formed the basis of the contracting officer's competitive range determination. Global's proposal was one of three excluded from the competitive range on January 2, 1997. The firm's proposal received 83.8 of the 200 available points, the next-to-lowest score received, and the contracting officer deemed the proposal unacceptable and not susceptible of being made acceptable absent major revisions. On June 16, the Army awarded four contracts under this solicitation and provided Global with a written debriefing on June 23.[1] Global filed its initial protest on June 26, and a supplemental protest a month later. Global, which proposed to perform this contract as a joint venture with one design subcontractor, challenges numerous aspects of the Army's evaluation of its proposal.