Perini/Jones, Joint Venture

B-285906 Nov 01, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a Department of the Navy contract award for worldwide emergency construction services, contending that the awardee's proposed project manager has an impermissible conflict of interest and that the Navy misevaluated both technical and cost proposals. GAO found that the Navy improperly gave the awardee evaluation credit for corporate experience of an affiliated company that was not proposed to perform the contract. Accordingly the protest was sustained, and GAO recommended that the Navy: (1) reevaluate the offerors' technical proposals, (2) review the cost evaluation method outlined in the solicitation, (3) revise the solicitation and provide the offerors an opportunity to submit revised proposals; and (4) reimburse the protester the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys' fees. View Decision Perini/Jones, Joint Venture, B-285906, November 1, 2000 * REDACTION DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Perini/Jones, Joint Venture (P/J) protests the award of a contract to Brown & Root Services (BRS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62470-00-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Navy to acquire worldwide emergency construction services. P/J asserts that the awardee's proposed project manager has an impermissible conflict of interest, and that the agency misevaluated both technical and cost proposals. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-reimbursement contract to perform, on an as-needed basis, immediate-response construction services worldwide. Essentially, the requirement is for the contractor to provide immediate comprehensive construction and construction-related services anywhere in the world where needed because of a natural or man-made disaster, or in connection with military-led or -supported humanitarian assistance. Offerors were required to submit detailed cost and technical proposals and were advised that the agency would award a contract based on its assessment of which proposal offered the best overall value to the government, considering cost and several non-cost evaluation factors. RFP at 59. The RFP advised that technical proposals would be evaluated using three broad factors listed in descending order of importance: corporate experience, past performance, and management/technical approach. Id. Under the management/technical approach factor, four subfactors were listed, also in descending order of importance: emergency response; organization, home office support and key personnel; financial management systems and procedures; and support for the small business program. Id. at 59-60. /1/ For cost evaluation purposes, the agency would assess the reasonableness of their proposed indirect rates, and the realism of proposed costs, and adjust costs where appropriate. RFP, amend. 2, at 5. For proposal purposes, firms were required only to provide indirect rates; for direct costs, the RFP included cost figures provided by the agency. Id. at 2. The agency received several initial offers and, after evaluating them, affording firms an opportunity to engage in discussions, make oral presentations and submit written final proposal revisions, assigned the following adjectival ratings to the proposals submitted by P/J and Brown & Root (the only proposals relevant here): . Corp. Past Mgmt. Emerg. Org., Fin. . Exp. Perf. & Resp. H/O Mgmt. . Tech. Supp./ Sys. & . Key Proc. . Pers. BRS Superior Acceptable Superior Superior Superior Acceptable (plus) (plus) . Small OVER Evaluated . Bus. ALL Annual . sup. TECH Cost . (thousand) . Superior Superior $48,879 P/J Superior Accep- Accep- Accep- Superior Margin- . table table table ally . (plus) (plus) (plus) accep- . table . Superior Superior $49,446 . (minus) Based on these evaluation results, the Navy made award to BRS as the firm submitting the proposal deemed to offer the government the best overall value. P/J filed this protest following a debriefing provided by the agency. P/J challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals on several grounds, and also alleges an improper conflict of interest. We have considered all of these arguments and sustain the protest on the ground that the agency improperly evaluated BRS's corporate experience. We find that P/J's remaining assertions are without merit. We discuss the conflict of interest and corporate experience evaluation arguments below. UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE In its initial protest, P/J asserted that BRS had an unfair competitive advantage because BRS's proposed program manager was an active duty Navy officer working in the same command that was conducting the acquisition at the time proposals were submitted and evaluated; P/J contended that this amounted to an improper conflict of interest.