Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp., B-279492.2, June 26,

B-279492.2 Jun 26, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency misled offeror during evaluations and improperly downgraded offeror's proposal for submitting "exceptions and clarifications" with its best and final offer is untimely where the offeror learned of its grounds of protest at debriefing conducted more than 10 days before the protester first raised these issues at the General Accounting Office. 2. Protest that agency failed to provide offeror with an opportunity to rebut negative past performance information is denied where offeror was not prejudiced as indicated by apparent accuracy of information obtained from knowledgeable individual and limited impact of past performance on evaluation score and award determination. B&V argues that the evaluation and award determination were flawed. View Decision Matter of: Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. File: B-279492.2 Date: June 26, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. (B&V) protests the award of a contract to McMaster Construction Co. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA56-97-R-0042, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for design and construction of a building at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma. B&V argues that the evaluation and award determination were flawed. We deny the protest. The RFP sought a single contractor or team of contractors to both design and construct (design/build) a B2 ADAL Software Maintenance Facility. In addition to a price proposal, offerors were required to submit a management/technical proposal detailing the proposed approach, personnel, team organization and responsibilities, and subcontractors; the offeror's experience and past performance; and management control systems, implementation, and past success. Offerors also were required to submit a partial design at a level of completeness indicated in RFP drawings. The RFP advised that "[m]odifications shall be limited to design criteria which is nonmandatory as set forth in [the RFP]" and that "the existing design is considered acceptable for consideration." The RFP provided for evaluation of the proposals under the following criteria, listed in descending order of importance: management/technical (85 points), partial design (15 points), and price (not scored). Offerors were advised that the total price was estimated to be $8.67 million and that proposals exceeding that level could be rejected. The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price contract with a performance award fee. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the best combination of management and technical capability, design features, and price reasonableness with the agency explicitly reserving the right to select other than the lowest-priced proposal. Five offerors, including B&V and McMaster, submitted proposals by the November 4, 1997 closing date for receipt of proposals. The agency performed an initial evaluation and determined to include all the proposals in the competitive range. In this initial evaluation, McMaster's proposal received a score of 78 points and B&V's proposal a score of 75 points. The agency amended the RFP (No. 0004) in part to respond to questions raised by the offerors. It then sent discussion questions to all offerors and responded to clarification requests including 45 such requests raised by B&V in its initial proposal. The discussion questions also reminded the offerors of the estimated cost ceiling and requested suggestions of how specifically identified high-cost areas of the proposals could be reduced. Both B&V and McMaster submitted revised proposals in December. Based on its evaluation of the revisions, the agency raised McMaster's proposal score to 80 points and B&V's to 76 points. The evaluators remained concerned that the proposed costs exceeded the government's estimate and conducted additional discussions with the offerors. The agency then issued an amendment (No. 0005) to respond to questions by the offerors and invited additional proposal revisions. With its January 23 and 29 submissions, B&V submitted 15 "exceptions and clarifications," most of which previously had been raised in B&V's initial proposal. The agency advised B&V that two of its assumptions were correct and that the remaining items were "acceptable provided they meet the requirements of the RFP." The letter also provided an example of one such item and advised that if the agency "determined that an item does not satisfy the requirements of the RFP," B&V would have to meet the requirement at no additional cost to the government. In a separate letter, the agency invited B&V to submit a best and final offer (BAFO). With its BAFO, B&V again raised the 15 "exceptions and clarifications" it included in its January submissions, plus one additional assumption. When the evaluators reviewed B&V's BAFO, they lowered B&V's proposal score to 70 points.