Government of Harford County, Maryland, B-283259; B-283259.3, October 28, 1999

Government of Harford County, Maryland, B-283259; B-283259.3, October 28, 1999 TITLE: Government of Harford County, Maryland, B-283259; B-283259.3, October 28, 1999 BNUMBER: B-283259; B-283259.3 DATE: October 28, 1999 ********************************************************************** Government of Harford County, Maryland, B-283259; B-283259.3, October 28, 1999 Decision Matter of: Government of Harford County, Maryland File: B-283259; B-283259.3 Date: October 28, 1999 James J. McCullough, Esq., Joel R. Feidelman, Esq., and Catherine E. Pollack, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, and Robert S. McCord, Esq. Government of Harford County, Maryland, for the protester. Howard S. Stevens, Esq., and Douglas G. Worrall, Esq., Wright, Constable & Skeen, for the City of Aberdeen, Maryland, an intervenor. Vera Meza, Esq., and David Scott, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. General Accounting Office has jurisdiction to consider protest where, notwithstanding the concomitant sale of government property, one of procurement's main objectives was acquisition of potable water and wastewater treatment services to Army for a 10-year period. 2. Protest that agency improperly required a particular technical approach and that neither solicitation nor discussions alerted protester to the evaluation impact of not proposing that approach is denied where protester was aware that solicitation, which stated that this particular technical approach would be the subject of the second most heavily weighted evaluation factor, was silent as to evaluation impact of not adopting the approach, yet protester did not file a timely solicitation challenge; even assuming agency error in this part of evaluation, it did not prejudice protester's chances of receiving award. 3. Protest that awardee's proposal contained material misrepresentations that were relied upon by agency in evaluating proposals is denied where examination of the awardee's proposal reveals no misrepresentations. DECISION The Government of Harford County, Maryland (the County) protests the award of a contract to the City of Aberdeen, Maryland (the City), by the Department of the Army, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAD05-98-R-0524. The protester contends that the evaluation of proposals was unreasonable, that discussions with it were inadequate, and that the City made material misrepresentations in its proposal. We deny the protest. Issued on February 27, 1998, the RFP solicited offers from public utility concerns for the purchase of Aberdeen Proving Ground's (APG) water and wastewater treatment facilities and for provision of potable water and wastewater services. [1] The RFP contemplated the sale of APG's water treatment facilities and its wastewater treatment facilities to one utility concern pursuant to the Army's "Privatization of Government-owned Utility Systems" initiative. RFP sect.sect. C.1.1, C.2 (water), C.2 (wastewater). The RFP also contemplated the award of one 10-year contract (with automatic renewal for successive 5-year periods) for both potable water and wastewater services from the utility that purchased the APG water and wastewater treatment facilities. [2] Id. sect.sect. C.1.1, C.13, L.9. The RFP stated that both potable water and wastewater services were to be provided to APG on a "cost of services" basis. Id. sect.sect. B.2, H.1 (water), and H.1 (wastewater). The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the offeror whose proposals were technically acceptable and offered the best overall value to the government, price and other factors considered. [3] RFP amend. 2, sect. M.2.2. In descending order of importance, the technical evaluation criteria for both wastewater services and potable water proposals were: (a) technical and management approach; (b) conceptual plan for joint use; (c) comparable experience; and (d) financial capability. The RFP stated that "conceptual plan for joint use" and "technical and management approach" were significantly more important than "comparable experience" and "financial capability," that "technical and management approach" was slightly more important than "conceptual plan for joint use," and that "comparable experience" was slightly more important than "financial capability." The RFP stated that all evaluation factors combined were significantly more important than price. Id. sect. M.2.1. The RFP also stated that price would not be point-scored and would increase in importance the closer the final evaluated technical scores were to one another. Id. sect. M.2.2. Three proposals were received by the June 24, 1998 closing date, and negotiations were held with all three offerors. [4] Best and final offers (BAFO) were received in November 1998, and evaluated by the agency. Agency Report, Tab D, exh.