Medlin Construction Group, B-286166, November 24, 2000

B-286166 Nov 24, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Provided for further development of successful offeror's design after award and required successful offeror to comply with all RFP requirements regardless of whether or not such compliance was shown in the drawings submitted with its proposal. Agency was not required to reject proposal as technically unacceptable because its drawings failed to show every detail required. Contemplated award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose offer was determined to be most advantageous to the government. Which were to be used to select the five most highly qualified offerors to participate in Phase Two. Were (1) past performance. Phase Two technical evaluation factors were (3)(b) proposed commitment to small business. View Decision Matter of: Medlin Construction Group File: B-286166 Date: November 24, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Medlin Construction Group protests the award of a contract to James N. Gray Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62474-99-R-6089, issued by the Department of the Navy for the design and construction of two physical fitness centers at the Naval Air Station, Lemoore, California. The protester contends that Gray's proposal did not comply with the terms of the RFP. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP calls for the design and construction of two physical fitness centers (PFC), one of approximately 5,410 square meters in the station's Administrative area and the other of approximately 575 square meters in the station's Operations area. The project also includes the rehabilitation of an existing outdoor swimming pool and the demolition of the existing PFC. The solicitation, which used the two-phase design-build selection procedures outlined in Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 36.3, contemplated award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose offer was determined to be most advantageous to the government, considering price and technical evaluation factors. Phase One technical evaluation factors, which were to be used to select the five most highly qualified offerors to participate in Phase Two, were (1) past performance, (2) corporate and key personnel experience, and (3)(a) past commitment to small business (for large businesses only). Phase Two technical evaluation factors were (3)(b) proposed commitment to small business, (4) gymnasium design, (5) site design, and (6) building systems and materials. RFP, Document 00202, Para. 1.2, 2. Several subfactors were listed under each of the three final factors. /1/ The six technical evaluation factors carried approximately equal weight, and the technical evaluation factors, when combined, were approximately equal in weight to price. Id. Para. 1.3. The RFP requested prices for seven items: a base item, which represented the minimum project requirements, and six "desirable" items, which represented upgrades to the minimum requirements. /2/ Offerors were advised that a budget of $13,830,000 was available for the contract, and that the agency was interested in obtaining desirable items to the extent possible within the budgeted amount. The solicitation included detailed design and construction requirements. Offerors were instructed to include in their Phase Two technical proposals a basis of design report, describing their design solutions and explaining their compliance with the project requirements outlined in the RFP. Id. Para. 3.2.2.b. In addition, offerors were instructed to submit site and building plans and technical information, such as catalog cuts and manufacturer's literature, describing items such as flooring, roofing, windows, and plumbing fixtures that they proposed to furnish. Id. The Navy received the Phase One proposals on February 25, 2000 and, after evaluation, selected the five most highly qualified offerors to participate in Phase Two. Phase Two proposals were received on June 6. After evaluating the proposals, the Navy eliminated two offerors from the competitive range. On July 7, the agency opened discussions with the three remaining firms, Gray, Medlin, and Offeror A, by forwarding them questions regarding their offers via e-mail. On July 12, Medlin notified the contracting officer that it had received another offeror's discussion questions in addition to its own. Upon review, the Navy discovered that it had inadvertently forwarded Offeror A's discussion questions to Medlin and Gray, as well as to Offeror A, and that it had furnished Medlin's discussion questions to Gray, as well as to Medlin. (Offeror A received only its own questions.) The contracting officer determined that the Navy had violated procurement regulations by disclosing offerors' discussion questions to other offerors and conducted a conference call with representatives of the three firms to determine whether this impropriety could be resolved in a manner that would satisfy the parties and protect the integrity of the procurement process.