J. A. Jones/IBC Joint Venture; Black Construction Company, B-285627; B-285627.2, September 18, 2000

J. A. Jones/IBC Joint Venture; Black Construction Company, B-285627; B-285627.2, September 18, 2000 TITLE: J. A. Jones/IBC Joint Venture; Black Construction Company, B-285627; B-285627.2, September 18, 2000 BNUMBER: B-285627; B-285627.2 DATE: September 18, 2000 ********************************************************************** J. A. Jones/IBC Joint Venture; Black Construction Company, B-285627; B-285627.2, September 18, 2000 Decision Matter of: J. A. Jones/IBC Joint Venture; Black Construction Company File: B-285627; B-285627.2 Date: September 18, 2000 Douglas L. Patin, Esq., Robert J. Symon, Esq., and Claire E. Kresse, Esq., Spriggs & Hollingsworth, for J. A. Jones/IBC Joint Venture; and Gary Y. Shigemura, Esq., and Koji Kato, Esq., Shigemura and Harakal, for Black Construction Company, the protesters. Richard Welsh, Esq., and Damon Martin, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering 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 Protests that agency unreasonably determined that protesters' proposals for design/construction contract were unacceptable but susceptible to being made acceptable and impermissibly awarded contract on the basis of initial proposals are denied, where record shows that protesters' proposals did not meet several of the solicitation's design requirements and contained informational deficiencies, and award to the offeror of the only technically acceptable proposal without discussions was consistent with the solicitation. DECISION J. A. Jones/IBC Joint Venture (Jones/IBC) and Black Construction Company (Black) protest the Navy's award of contract to Dick Pacific Construction Co., Ltd. (Dick) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. N62766-99-R-0200 for design and construction of an Army Reserve Center in Guam. Both protesters contend that the Navy misevaluated their proposals and, therefore, the selection of Dick was improper. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND Issued by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command on February 14, 2000, the RFP solicited fixed-price offers for the design and construction of an Army Reserve Center including five buildings (administration, training, maintenance, storage, and unheated storage), utility connections (sewer, water, telephone, electrical, cable television, and other local area network), and other related work. The RFP included a large number of mandatory design requirements that offers were required to meet. The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value, after evaluation of price and technical factors. The technical evaluation factors were building design; proposer experience/past performance; designer qualifications, experience and past performance; management plan; construction company's safety record; and small business subcontracting effort. Price proposals would be evaluated to determine that prices were balanced, fair, and reasonable. The RFP stated that the agency intended to award a contract without conducting discussions and, therefore, advised that initial proposals should contain the offeror's best terms. The RFP also advised that proposals should set forth full, accurate and complete information, and that the government would rely on the information contained in the proposal in awarding the contract. Four offers were received and evaluated by the technical evaluation board (TEB). Three of the four proposals, including those of Jones and Black, were given overall technical ratings of "unacceptable but susceptible to becoming acceptable." Dick's proposal was given an overall rating of "highly acceptable" and ranked first on technical merit. [1] The Jones proposal (total price of [deleted]) was the [deleted] Black's proposal (total price of [deleted]) was the second [deleted] and Dick's proposal (total price of $15,248,982) was the highest-priced. [2] The TEB recommended to the source selection board (SEB) that discussions be conducted and prepared questions to be asked of each offeror. The SSB agreed with the overall technical ratings given by the TEB, but decided that enough information was available to determine the best value and to award the contract without discussions. After comparing the costs of the perceived technical benefits of Dick's highest rated proposal with those of Black's [deleted] rated proposal and determining that Dick's price compared favorably with the government estimate and other proposals, the SSB recommended that the contract be awarded to Dick. After reviewing the TEB and SEB reports, the source selection authority (SSA) noted that Dick's proposal was the only acceptable proposal received. The SSA also noted that the Jones proposal did not meet all RFP requirements, would require significant redesign to achieve conformance, and therefore was not eligible for award.