Mechanical Contractors, S.A., B-277916.2, March 4, 1998

B-277916.2 Mar 04, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a Panama Canal Commission (PCC) contract award for the cleaning and painting of four miter gate leaves, contending that PCC: (1) improperly did not hold discussions with it concerning deficiencies that PCC found in the protester's bid; and (2) unreasonably downgraded its bid. GAO held that: (1) PCC should have held discussions with the protester, since almost all of the deficiencies and weaknesses that PCC found in the protester's bid were informational in nature; and (2) the deficiencies were critical to PCC's contract award decision. Accordingly, the protest was sustained, and GAO recommended that the protester only be reimbursed for the cost of pursuing the protest, since the awardee has completed roughly twenty-five percent of the contract work. View Decision Matter of: Mechanical Contractors, S.A. File: B-277916.2 Date: March 4, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Mechanical Contractors, S.A. (MCSA) protests the award of a firm, fixed-price contract to Formal Management Systems, Inc. (FMS), under request for proposals (RFP) No. CC-97-33, issued by the Panama Canal Commission (PCC) for cleaning and painting of four miter gate leaves in the Panama Canal. The contract was awarded to FMS on August 21, 1997. MCSA protested the award and, in Mechanical Contractors, S.A., B-277916, Oct. 27, 1997, 97-2 CPD Para. 121, we sustained MCSA's protest because the evaluations of MCSA's and FMS's proposals were not adequately supported and lacked reasonable bases. Id. at 3-6. We recommended, among other things, that the PCC reevaluate both MCSA's and FMS's proposals and make a new selection decision. Id. at 7. After reevaluating the proposals, the PCC affirmed its original decision to award FMS the contract. MCSA protests that the agency improperly did not hold discussions with it concerning deficiencies that the new evaluation board found in MCSA's proposal during the reevaluation. MCSA also contends that the new evaluation board unreasonably downgraded its proposal. We sustain the protest. Issued on May 12, 1997, the RFP solicited proposals for abrasive blast cleaning and exterior painting above the water line using inorganic zinc primer and coal tar polyurethane; and below the water line using hot-applied coal tar enamel; and for performing mechanical, electrical, and other related work. The RFP specified that the work would be performed in 13 separate phases and included performance specifications describing in great detail the manner in which the work was to be done. Offerors were to submit technical proposals and price schedules. Technical proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of two equally weighted technical factors (worth 100 technical points each): technical approach and performance capability. The technical approach factor included seven subfactors: (1) removal of existing coatings; (2) surface preparation and paint application procedures; (3) equipment to be utilized; (4) safety plan; (5) ventilation system; (6) air cleaning system; and (7) handling and disposal of waste materials. The performance capability factor included five subfactors: (1) organization; (2) specific personnel; (3) specialized experience; (4) past performance; and (5) quality control plan. The RFP stated that price would be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. The RFP further stated that the contract would be awarded to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government after consideration of price and other evaluation factors. In determining which proposal was most advantageous, the RFP indicated that the agency would consider the relative advantages and disadvantages of offers and the relative price for each technical point received by each offer. Three proposals, including those of MCSA and FMS, were received by the July 3, 1997, deadline for submission. After evaluation of the technical portion of each proposal by the evaluation board, all three proposals were included in the competitive range. /1/ Subsequently, each offeror was advised of areas of its proposal which needed to be further addressed and each was requested to submit a best and final offer (BAFO). The BAFO scores were as follows: Technical Approach Performance Capability Total Points MCSA 60.85 points 66.2 points 127.05 points FMS 72.7 points 81.55 points 154.25 points MCSA's price of $2,564,500 was lower than the FMS price of $2,640,000. The evaluation board performed a price/technical tradeoff analysis and determined that the FMS proposal was the most advantageous because it had a lower price per technical point than the MCSA proposal. The evaluation board's recommendation was adopted by the source selection official, and the contract was awarded to FMS.