J.A. Jones/Bell, A Joint Venture, B-286458; B-286458.2, December 27, 2000

J.A. Jones/Bell, A Joint Venture, B-286458; B-286458.2, December 27, 2000 TITLE: J.A. Jones/Bell, A Joint Venture, B-286458; B-286458.2, December 27, 2000 BNUMBER: B-286458; B-286458.2 DATE: December 27, 2000 ********************************************************************** J.A. Jones/Bell, A Joint Venture, B-286458; B-286458.2, December 27, 2000 Decision Matter of: J.A. Jones/Bell, A Joint Venture File: B-286458; B-286458.2 Date: December 27, 2000 Joel S. Rubinstein, Esq., and Andrew N. Cook, Esq., Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, for the protester. William W. Goodrich, Jr., Esq., Matthew S. Perlman, Esq., and David A. Vogel, Esq., Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, for Clark/Guilford, A Joint Venture, the intervenor. Jerry A. Walz, Esq., and Fred Kopatich, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging that discussions were not meaningful in two areas is denied where the record shows that in one area, the agency clearly communicated its concerns regarding the protester's proposed approach, and in the other area, which was not raised during discussions, the protester has offered no evidence of how it might have responded to improve its proposal, and thus, has not shown that it was prejudiced by agency's decision not to raise the matter during discussions. 2. Protester's challenge to the evaluation of its proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION J.A. Jones/Bell, A Joint Venture, protests the award of a contract to Clark/Guilford, A Joint Venture, by the Department of Commerce pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 52SBNBOC1045, issued for the construction of the Advanced Measurement Laboratory at the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology campus in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Jones/Bell argues that the agency failed to hold meaningful discussions regarding weaknesses in its proposal, and improperly evaluated the proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The National Institute of Standards and Technology develops measurement methods, standards and testing procedures that provide the underpinning to several critical technologies, including semiconductor electronics, manufacturing engineering, development of advanced materials, biotechnology, and information technology. To perform this work, the Institute has developed plans for the Advanced Measurement Laboratory, which, when completed, will consist of five building wings that combine features of close temperature control, vibration isolation, air cleanliness, and power quality into one of the most technologically-advanced laboratory buildings in the world. Agency Report at 2. After a 1996 attempt to build this laboratory was abandoned for lack of funds, the current RFP was issued on May 19, 2000. The RFP anticipated award of a fixed-price contract "to the offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government from a technical and price standpoint." RFP sect. M.4. To determine which proposal presents the best value, the RFP identified three technical evaluation factors, and advised that the three factors combined would be approximately equal to price. The three evaluation factors were (1) past performance and experience, (2) management of the project, and (3) small business subcontracting plan. Of these, the RFP advised that the first two evaluation factors would be the most important, and that the past performance factor was slightly more important than the project management factor. In addition, the RFP provided detailed evaluation subfactors and elements. Under the past performance and experience factor, the RFP identified the following two subfactors of approximately equal value: (1) previous clients' assessment of the offeror's and major subcontractors' performance; and (2) experience constructing projects of comparable size, technical nature, and complexity. Under the project management factor, the RFP identified three subfactors: (1) the offeror's proposed methodology; (2) key personnel; and (3) project schedule. The first of these subfactors, methodology, was equal to the value of the second two, while the second two were equal in value to each other. Under the management factor's methodology subfactor, there were four separately-scored, equally-weighted elements: (1) quality assurance plan; (2) building commissioning plan; (3) change order management plan; and (4) safety plan. Under the management factor's second subfactor, key personnel, there were six separately identified key personnel positions; however, these positions were not separately scored. By the July 19 due date for submission of proposals, the agency received two initial proposals--one from Jones/Bell, one from Clark/Gilford.