D&K Construction Company, Inc., B-281244.3, October 1, 1999

B-281244.3 Oct 01, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency reasonably canceled solicitation where the agency had engaged in several rounds of discussions with offerors and the protester's offer remained noncompliant with the solicitation requirements while the only other competitor's revised proposal was submitted late. D&K contends that it should have received the award based on its proposal. The RFP was issued on May 11. Offerors were to submit their proposals in three separate sections: (1) design/technical. The design/technical portion of proposals was to be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria (with the point scores for each criterion): site design (274). The total possible score was 1. The factors and subfactors to be considered for each criterion were also listed. View Decision Matter of: D&K Construction Company, Inc. File: B-281244.3 Date: October 1, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION D&K Construction Company, Inc. protests the cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA65-98-R-0010, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District, Norfolk, Virginia, for site development, design/construction (build) of 35 family housing units (two accessible to the handicapped), and renovation of a building as a community center at Spicer Village, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. D&K contends that it should have received the award based on its proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on May 11, 1998. Offerors were to submit their proposals in three separate sections: (1) design/technical, (2) offeror performance capability, and (3) pro forma requirements including representations, certifications, subcontracting plan, proposal bonds, Standard Form 1442, and schedule of proposed prices. RFP at 00100-19. The design/technical portion of proposals was to be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria (with the point scores for each criterion): site design (274); site engineering (104); housing unit design (438); housing unit engineering (210); community center design and engineering (50); and offeror past performance (200). The total possible score was 1,276 points. The factors and subfactors to be considered for each criterion were also listed. Id. at 00100-27 through 00100-37. The RFP stated that an offeror must provide information sufficiently detailed to clearly indicate the materials, equipment, methods, functions, and schedules proposed. Id. at 00100-18. Unsupported promises to comply with RFP requirements would not be sufficient. Significant deficiencies, which caused exceptionally low scores on factors or subfactors could constitute a basis for proposal rejection. Id. at 00100-2. The RFP also stated that a "[f]ailure to submit all the data indicated in this section may be cause for determining a proposal nonresponsive and, therefore, not considered for award." Id. at 00100-25. The RFP, while advising that the RFP requirement were minimums, stated that "Innovative, creative, or cost-saving proposals which meet or exceed these requirements are encouraged and will receive quality points. . . . Deviations from any requirements must be clearly noted and justified in the proposal." Id., Statement of Work (SOW), at 3. The RFP further provided that after the award and notice to proceed, the contractor would have a 135-day design performance period. At the end of 60 days the contractor was to have completed 50 percent of the building design (including design analysis, drawings and specifications) and 100 percent of the utility design. At the end of 100 days the contractor was to have completed 100 percent of the building design including revised design analysis and drawings and specifications, and at the end of the135-day period the contractor was to have completed all design work. Post-award deviations from the RFP technical requirements would be considered and might be approved by the contracting officer if the changes would result in a significant improvement to the project or exceed the minimum RFP requirements. Id. at 00800-8. Two offers were received--one from M.A. Angeliades, Inc. and the other from D&K. The technical proposals of each offeror were evaluated with Angeliades' proposal receiving a score of 529 and D&K's a score of 456 points. Angeliades submitted a higher price than that offered by D&K. A subsequent request for best and final offers (BAFO) required confirmation that the offeror would comply with certain requirements and permitted the revision of prices. Both offerors provided the requested confirmation; neither changed their initial price. After the proposals had been reviewed, the source selection recommendation board (SSRB), concluded that the higher-priced Angeliades' proposal offered the "best value" due to the additional quality features proposed and recommended award to Angeliades. On September 29, 1998, award was made, and the notice to proceed on the design phase of the contract was issued.