Blocacor, LDA, B-282122.3, August 2, 1999

B-282122.3 Aug 02, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights General Accounting Office will not consider argument regarding technical acceptability of proposal since protester would not be in line for award even if it prevailed. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of the following factors: 1. Six proposals were received prior to the January 14. Meneses & McFadden's price was fourth low. He telephoned each of the three companies the following morning and told them that they could have until noon that day "to submit clarifications regarding the missing information.". Its offer was "non-responsive" (i.e. A contract was awarded to Meneses & McFadden. We dismissed the protest on the ground that De Sousa was otherwise ineligible for award and thus was not an interested party to protest. /2/ Within 10 days of learning that we had determined De Sousa ineligible for award. View Decision Matter of: Blocacor, LDA File: B-282122.3 Date: August 2, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Blocacor, LDA protests the rejection of its offer and the award of a contract to Meneses & McFadden, Cartor and VHC Joint Venture under request for proposals (RFP) No. F61040-99-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Air Force for demolition of a hospital building and dormitory at Lajes Air Base, Azores, Portugal. The protester argues that the agency wrongly found its proposal technically unacceptable based on its failure to submit past performance and other requested information. Blocacor also argues that the agency violated the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) by engaging in discussions with some, but not all, offerors, and that the Air Force improperly failed to allow a reasonable time for the submission of responses to its discussion questions and to request another round of best and final offers (BAFO). We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal "meets the solicitation's minimum criteria for acceptable award at the lowest price." RFP at 3. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of the following factors: 1. Total overall price of proposal 2. Past performance in providing similar demolition services 1. Submission of the name and address of a qualified shipping company and disposal location for all asbestos and hazardous waste associated with the contract. Id. Six proposals were received prior to the January 14, 1999 closing date. Idalecio De Sousa submitted the lowest price, and Blocacor the second lowest; Meneses & McFadden's price was fourth low. The contracting officer found that the three lowest-priced offerors had all failed to furnish the information required by the second and third evaluation factors. He telephoned each of the three companies the following morning and told them that they could have until noon that day "to submit clarifications regarding the missing information." Memorandum of Law at 2. Blocacor did not submit the requested information. The technical evaluation team determined that because Blocacor had "failed to submit records of past performance for similar type of work" and had not submitted the name and location of a qualified shipping company or disposal location, its offer was "non-responsive" (i.e., unacceptable). /1/ Technical Evaluation Memorandum, Jan. 18, 1999, at 2. The technical evaluation team also found the offers of De Sousa and the third low offeror nonresponsive and recommended award to Meneses & McFadden as the lowest-priced acceptable offeror. On February 17, 1999, a contract was awarded to Meneses & McFadden. On February 24, De Sousa protested the rejection of its offer and the award to Meneses & McFadden to our Office. By decision dated April 22, we dismissed the protest on the ground that De Sousa was otherwise ineligible for award and thus was not an interested party to protest. /2/ Within 10 days of learning that we had determined De Sousa ineligible for award, Blocacor filed its protest with our Office, arguing that it was now the lowest-priced offeror otherwise eligible for award, and, as such, was an interested party to protest. /3/ ANALYSIS Blocacor argues that its proposal should not have been rejected as technically unacceptable based on its failure to submit past performance information and the name of a qualified shipping company and disposal location because this information bears on its responsibility, and, as such, could have been submitted after the date set for receipt of proposals. The Air Force defends its rejection of the protester's proposal as technically unacceptable and argues that Blocacor would never have been selected for award in any event because it would not have been found responsible. As discussed below, we find that the contracting officer had a reasonable basis for determining Blocacor nonresponsible; accordingly, we need not address the issue of the technical acceptability of its proposal.