Speegle Construction, Inc., B-286063, November 1, 2000

B-286063 Nov 01, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency decision to exclude proposal for renovation of barracks from the competitive range was reasonable where offeror failed to include mechanical systems in its floor plans. Technical proposals were due on June 5. The agency did not consider it because it was submitted after the June 5 closing date. The competitive range consists of the most highly rated proposals (except where the range is reduced for purposes of efficiency). An offeror runs the risk of having its proposal downgraded and excluded from the competitive range if the proposal is inadequately written. We will not reevaluate proposals. We will review the record to ensure that the evaluation and competitive range determination were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. View Decision Matter of: Speegle Construction, Inc. File: B-286063 Date: November 1, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Speegle Construction, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62467-99-R-0893, issued by the Department of the Navy for the design and renovation of barracks 313 to 318 at the Naval Construction Battalion in Gulfport, Mississippi. We deny the protest. The solicitation provided for a best value award based on an evaluation of past performance, small business subcontracting effort, technical qualifications, technical solutions and price. Technical proposals were due on June 5. Speegle submitted its technical proposal on June 2. Speegle also submitted a modification to its technical proposal on June 16, but the agency did not consider it because it was submitted after the June 5 closing date. A technical evaluation board evaluated the technical proposals and rated Speegle's unacceptable under the technical solutions factor because Speegle's floor plans did not include space for mechanical systems, and the proposal did not provide required narratives with respect to the plumbing, HVAC, electrical, telecommunication and fire protection systems and did not offer the required number of beds for barracks 316 and 318. Technical Evaluation Report (TER) at 15. As a result, the Navy excluded Speegle's proposal from the competitive range. Speegle protests this action, arguing that the agency unreasonably found its proposal to be deficient. The competitive range consists of the most highly rated proposals (except where the range is reduced for purposes of efficiency), based on evaluation of the information submitted in each proposal against the stated evaluation criteria. United Housing Servs., Inc., B-281352.14, May 7, 1999, 99-1 CPD Para. 80 at 3. An offeror runs the risk of having its proposal downgraded and excluded from the competitive range if the proposal is inadequately written. Id. In reviewing protests of competitive range determinations, we will not reevaluate proposals; rather, we will review the record to ensure that the evaluation and competitive range determination were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. SDS Petroleum Prods., Inc., B-280430, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD Para. 59 at 4. The evaluation of Speegle's proposal was reasonable; the record supports the agency's conclusion that the proposal was deficient in the three respects noted above. We discuss each deficiency below. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS The Navy concluded that Speegle's proposal was unacceptable under the technical solutions factor because, among other reasons, the floor plans in its proposal did not include space for mechanical systems. TER at 15. Speegle maintains that the Navy's conclusion was incorrect because it addressed mechanical systems in its proposal, and its floor plans do show mechanical rooms for the various barracks. We initiated a conference call with the Navy and Speegle on September 26, 2000 to determine the basis for the Navy's finding, since our review of the record showed that the drawings Speegle cited did in fact include mechanical rooms. The Navy explained that the floor plans that Speegle referenced did not address the deficiency, because they showed only mechanical rooms that already existed and did not provide space for mechanical systems that had to be provided under the RFP. For example, the Navy cited RFP sec. D 3000, paragraph 1.2, under which offerors were required to include a water source heat pump for each module in buildings 313, 315, 316 and 318; the Navy found that Speegle's floor plans did not include space for these heat pumps. Speegle was given the opportunity to respond to the agency's explanation, but did not do so.