Menendez-Donnell & Associates, B-286599, January 16, 2001

B-286599 Jan 16, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Offerors have an affirmative duty to prepare an adequately written proposal. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of two technical considerations. Offerors were advised that a key subcontractor was one that would contribute 20 percent or more to project completion. Offerors were required to provide information on three prior similar contracts for the prime and each key subcontractor. Offerors were required to provide information on three similar projects for each key employee to show that they were qualified to perform the requirement. Three contracts were awarded to firms whose proposals were technically acceptable with competitive pricing. The agency concluded that MDA's proposal was technically unacceptable because of a lack of information relating to the experience and past performance of either MDA or its proposed subcontractors. View Decision Matter of: Menendez-Donnell & Associates File: B-286599 Date: January 16, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Menendez-Donnell & Associates (MDA) protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-07P-00-HHD-0081, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for heavy road construction and paving services in the state of New Mexico. MDA asserts that the agency misevaluated its proposal and improperly found its proposal to be technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. The RFP, a small business set-aside, called for technical and price proposals to perform heavy road construction and paving throughout the state of New Mexico for a base period of 5 years, with two additional 5-year option periods. The agency contemplated awarding one or more indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts on a best-value basis, with technical considerations deemed significantly more important than price. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of two technical considerations--experience and past performance of the prime contractor and key subcontractors on similar projects (the more important factor), and qualifications and past experience of key personnel. Regarding the experience and past performance of the prime and subcontractors criterion, offerors were advised that a key subcontractor was one that would contribute 20 percent or more to project completion. In order to demonstrate experience and past performance, offerors were required to provide information on three prior similar contracts for the prime and each key subcontractor. Similarly, under the qualifications and past experience of key personnel criterion, offerors were required to provide information on three similar projects for each key employee to show that they were qualified to perform the requirement. The agency reserved the right to evaluate proposals and make award on the basis of initial offers, without conducting discussions. The agency received numerous proposals, including the protester's. After evaluating the proposals, the agency decided to proceed with award on the basis of initial offers, without discussions. Three contracts were awarded to firms whose proposals were technically acceptable with competitive pricing. The agency concluded that MDA's proposal was technically unacceptable because of a lack of information relating to the experience and past performance of either MDA or its proposed subcontractors, and because MDA's proposed key personnel lacked relevant experience in road construction. See Consensus Evaluation Worksheet for MDA. In this regard, the record shows that MDA submitted information on three prior contracts it had performed, which the agency determined were not similar to the solicited requirement (the contracts were for construction management and inspection services and quality control services, as opposed to the actual performance of heavy road construction). Id.; MDA Proposal at Tab 2. As for its key subcontractors, MDA submitted no information whatsoever relating to their prior contracts. See Consensus Evaluation Worksheet for MDA. Finally, the agency determined that MDA's proposed key personnel, for the most part, did not have experience in performing the type of heavy road construction contemplated by the RFP. See MDA Proposal at Tab 2. MDA asserts that it was improper for the agency to reject its proposal as unacceptable without first seeking to clarify its experience and past performance information, either by soliciting additional information from it, or by consulting the agency's own records which, the protester maintains, contain information relating to its prior contracts. In this regard, MDA notes that the Commerce Business Daily announcement for this requirement stated that the agency was not limited to reviewing only information presented in the proposal relating to prior contracts.