Main Building Maintenance, Inc., B-279191.3, August 5, 1998

B-279191.3 Aug 05, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where agency concluded during pendency of protests that it could not defend initial protests because discussions with the previous protester were not meaningful and did not afford that firm an opportunity to clarify or revise its proposal to address evaluators' concerns. Astro alleged that the Air Force's discussions with it were inadequate and that the Air Force improperly eliminated Astro's proposal from the competitive range based upon an unreasonable technical evaluation. MBM contends that the Air Force's decision to take corrective action in response to Astro's prior protests is improper because the agency's discussions with Astro were adequate and the agency reasonably evaluated Astro's proposal and eliminated it from the competitive range. View Decision Matter of: Main Building Maintenance, Inc. File: B-279191.3 Date: August 5, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Main Building Maintenance, Inc. (MBM) protests the Air Force's decision to take corrective action in response to two prior protests filed by Astro Quality Services, Inc. (Astro) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F41636-96-R-0047, for base engineering services. MBM had been awarded two contracts pursuant to the RFP. In its prior protests, Astro alleged that the Air Force's discussions with it were inadequate and that the Air Force improperly eliminated Astro's proposal from the competitive range based upon an unreasonable technical evaluation. After reviewing the protests, the Air Force determined that it had not held meaningful discussions with Astro and that its decision to eliminate Astro from the competitive range could not be supported. Agency Report, June 1, 1998, at 2. The Air Force decided to take corrective action, including: reinstating Astro to the competitive range, reopening discussions with all competitive range offerors, receiving and evaluating new best and final offers (BAFO), and making a new award determination. Id. MBM contends that the Air Force's decision to take corrective action in response to Astro's prior protests is improper because the agency's discussions with Astro were adequate and the agency reasonably evaluated Astro's proposal and eliminated it from the competitive range. We deny the protest. The RFP solicited proposals for providing labor, equipment, materials, transportation, and services related to base engineering requirements for minor construction/maintenance/repair projects to be performed at Lackland Air Force Base and Wilford Hall Medical Center. RFP Sec. C.3.1. The RFP contemplated award of two 1-year indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts (one for Lackland and the other for Wilford Hall), each with options for 4 additional years. RFP Sec. B.5.1, M-910; Contracting Officer (CO) Statement, Mar. 5, 1998, at 1. The RFP stated, at Sec. M-901.A, that contracts would be awarded to the offerors whose proposals were determined to be most advantageous after consideration of price and other factors. Eight offerors submitted initial proposals. After several rounds of discussions, the agency eliminated all but three offerors from the competitive range; Astro was one of the offerors eliminated. Agency Report at 1. After evaluating BAFOs, the Air Force determined that MBM's proposals represented the best overall value and awarded MBM both the Lackland and Wilford Hall contracts. CO Statement at 2; Source Selection Decision at 1; Agency Report at 2. After a debriefing, Astro protested to our Office. /1/ Among other things, Astro alleged that the Air Force did not hold meaningful discussions and incorrectly evaluated its proposal in four areas in which the evaluators perceived deficiencies and upon which the agency based its decision to eliminate Astro from the competitive range. Astro challenged the agency's conclusions that: [deleted] Our Office scheduled a hearing on Astro's protests and notified the parties that we would hear testimony concerning the four reasons identified by the Air Force for eliminating Astro from the competitive range. Shortly thereafter, the Air Force informed our Office that it intended to take corrective action in response to the protests, reinstating Astro to the competitive range and reopening discussions. Astro withdrew both protests, and we closed our files on April 21. On April 27, MBM filed this protest in our Office, alleging that the Air Force had improperly decided to put Astro back into the competitive range and to reopen discussions with all competitive range offerors. MBM states that the Air Force's decision to take corrective action was based solely upon the agency's determination that the original evaluation incorrectly concluded that Astro's proposed [deleted] and MBM contends that the competition should not be reopened, because the Air Force's original conclusion that Astro's [deleted] was correct. MBM Protest Letter, May 21, 1998, at 2-3.