John Carlo, Inc., B-289202, January 23, 2002

B-289202 Jan 23, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester's proposal for the rebuilding of a runway was reasonably evaluated by the agency as unacceptable where the protester's proposed organizational structure for accomplishing the project was unclear and where a protester's representative conceded during the presentation/discussion session that he had not read a critical section of the solicitation's specifications. 2. Is unobjectionable. Where there is no prejudicial difference regarding the protester's and agency's descriptions of what was stated during the session. The protester challenges the manner in which presentations/discussions were conducted. There were four technical subfactors: project management. The proposals were evaluated by a source selection evaluation board (SSEB). View Decision John Carlo, Inc., B-289202, January 23, 2002 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION John Carlo, Inc. (JCI) protests the award of a contract to Dan's Excavating Inc. (DEI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAHA20-01-R-0012, issued by the Michigan Air National Guard, for the rebuilding of a runway, a new drainage system, approach lighting and an electrical vault, for the Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Michigan. The protester challenges the manner in which presentations/discussions were conducted, as well as the evaluation of its proposal and the selection of the awardee's higher-priced proposal for award. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value to the agency, considering present/past performance, technical, and price factors. The solicitation listed subfactors, as well as the elements comprising the subfactors, under the present/past performance and technical factors. There were four technical subfactors: project management, progress schedule, construction equipment and plant, and material and product compliance schedule. The RFP informed offerors that a proposal "receiving at least one 'Unsatisfactory' [technical] sub-factor rating may receive an 'overall' rating of 'Unsatisfactory [under the technical factor].'" /1/ The solicitation added that each offeror's proposed price would be evaluated for reasonableness, realism and completeness, and that in arriving at its best value determination, the proposal's rating under the present/past performance and technical evaluation factors would be considered "approximately equal to cost or price." RFP at 22-29; amend. No. 0001 at 3. The agency received five proposals by the RFP's closing date. The proposals were evaluated by a source selection evaluation board (SSEB). Three of the proposals, including JCI's and DEI's, were included in the competitive range. The SSEB determined that all of the proposals in the competitive range were deficient in certain areas, but were nevertheless "[s]usceptible to being made [a]cceptable." Agency Report (AR), Tab 18, Determination of Competitive Range. For example, the SSEB determined that "none of the offerors provided an adequate narrative fully discussing their approach to the project," and that the "[o]fferors did not adequately demonstrate their knowledge of the project that would provide the evaluators with an acceptable level of confidence of the planned project execution." The agency decided that the "fairest way to obtain this information was to allow each [competitive range] offeror . . . the opportunity to discuss their approach and execution plan for the project orally." AR, Tab 1, Contracting Officer's Statement, at 5. By letters dated August 17, 2001, the agency scheduled discussions with the three competitive range offerors. The letters informed the offerors of the specific deficiencies and weaknesses identified in their respective proposals, and requested the submission of revised proposals. AR, Tabs 19A-C, Agency Letters to Competitive Range Offerors. For example, JCI was informed that, among other things, its proposal failed to provide "complete information regarding the project management team that will be utilized on this project," and that it needed to identify its project superintendent and its electrical subcontractor. AR, Tab 19A, Agency Letter to JCI (Aug. 17, 2001). On August 20, the agency provided each offeror with a second letter requesting additional information regarding their respective proposals. These letters also confirmed that each offeror would "be attending the presentation/discussion of the subject project," and stated that the "meeting [would] consist of a 30[-]minute presentation of your understanding and approach" to the work required.