Georgia Power

Georgia Power TITLE: Georgia Power Company; Savannah Electric and Power Company--, B-289211.5; B-289211.6, October 6, 2000 BNUMBER: B-289211.5; B-289211.6 DATE: October 6, 2000 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Georgia Power Company; Savannah Electric and Power Company--Costs File: B-289211.5; B-289211.6 Date: May 2, 2002 David K. Wilson, Esq., Troutman Sanders, for the protester. Steven W. Feldman, Esq., and Craig R. Schmauder, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency unduly delayed taking corrective action until after submission of the agency report and the protesters' comments in the face of clearly meritorious protests that the agency did not, as contemplated by the solicitation, reasonably evaluate whether the awardee's past performance was for services similar in size, magnitude, and complexity to the solicitation requirement; General Accounting Office recommends that the protesters be reimbursed for the costs of filing and pursuing their protests. DECISION Georgia Power Company and Savannah Electric and Power Company request that our Office recommend that the firms be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing protests they filed, on October 19, 2001, challenging awards made to Canoochee Electric Membership Cooperative by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAC87-01-R-0005 for the privatization of electric distribution services at Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield (AAF). On December 12, 2001, after receipt of the protesters' comments on the agency's report, the Corps took corrective action in response to the protests. Based upon the promised corrective action, we dismissed the protests as academic. The protesters contend that the Corps unduly delayed taking corrective action in the face of clearly meritorious protests. We grant the protesters' requests and recommend that the agency reimburse the protesters their reasonable costs of filing and pursuing the protests. The RFP was issued pursuant to 10 U.S.C. sect. 2688 (2000) for the privatization of electric distribution systems at Fort Stewart and Hunter AAF (two separate military installations). Under that section, the ?Secretary of a military department may convey a utility system, or part of a utility system, under the jurisdiction of the Secretary to a municipal, private, regional, district, or cooperative utility company or other entity.? 10 U.S.C. sect. 2688(a); see Virginia Elec. And Power Co.; Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., B-285209, B-285209.2, Aug. 2, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 134 at 2. The RFP provided for the award of one or more 50-year contracts for the transfer of ownership of electric distributions systems at Fort Stewart and Hunter AAF, and to obtain distribution services from the new owner(s) of the systems. RFP sect. B. A detailed statement of work described the required services. Among other things, the contractor(s) would be required to provide all electric distribution utility service(s) on a 24 hour, 365 days per year basis. The Contractor, at its expense, [would be required to] furnish, install, operate, and maintain all facilities required to furnish the service hereunder. RFP amend. 11, sect. C.1. In addition, the contractor(s) were responsible for financing all capital improvements necessary to maintain, modify, repair, upgrade, and expand each system to meet the installations' utility requirements. Id. The RFP provided for award(s) on the basis of an integrated assessment of the following factors: (1) technical approach, experience and capability; (2) past performance; and (3) cost/price. Factor (1) was stated to be more important than factor (2), and factors (1) and (2) were stated to be together significantly more important than factor (3). Id. sect. M.II. Offerors were informed that award would not necessarily be made based upon only low price or high technical ratings. Id. sect. M.I.A. With respect to the past performance factor, the RFP stated that: The offeror's past performance will be evaluated for the quality of product and service, timeliness of performance, cost control, safety, customer satisfaction, the comprehensive nature of previous projects and of the offeror's commitment to customer satisfaction. Each offeror will be evaluated on past performance under existing and prior contracts/subcontracts for services similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to this requirement. Id. sect. M.II. Detailed proposal preparation instructions were provided with regard to responding to each of the evaluation factors. Id. sect. L.