B-291307.5; B-298017, Veolia Water North America Operating Services, LLC, May 19, 2006
Case: B-291307.5
Agency:
Protester: B
Date: 2006-05-19
Denied
B-291307.5; B-298017, Veolia Water North America Operating Services, LLC, May 19, 2006
TITLE: B-291307.5; B-298017, Veolia Water North America Operating Services, LLC, May 19, 2006
BNUMBER: B-291307.5; B-298017
DATE: May 19, 2006
**************************************************************************************
B-291307.5; B-298017, Veolia Water North America Operating Services, LLC, May 19, 2006
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: Veolia Water North America Operating Services, LLC
File: B-291307.5; B-298017
Date: May 19, 2006
Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., for the protester.
Robert E. Little, Jr., Esq., Department of the Navy, 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
1. In negotiated procurements for privatization of utility system
assets, protester has not shown that the agency erred in determining that
10 U.S.C. sect. 2688(f)(2) prohibited the conveyance of utility assets
under a proposed scheme in which the protester would contract to operate
and maintain the utility system assets and would not retain title in the
assets, but would simultaneously transfer title in the assets to an
unrelated third party which the agency was required to acknowledge as the
primary obligor for the purchase price of the assets.
2. Protest requesting GAO's recommendation based upon a promissory
estoppel theory of detrimental reliance by the protester upon alleged
actions of the agency that are not grounded upon an asserted statutory or
regulatory violation will not be considered because the Competition in
Contracting Act of 1984 only authorizes GAO to decide bid protests
concerning alleged violations of a procurement statute or regulation.
DECISION
Veolia Water North America Operating Services, LLC protests the conduct of
negotiations by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC),
Department of the Navy, under request for proposals (RFP) No.
N62470-00-R-3602, issued by NAVFAC's Atlantic Division to competitively
select parties for the privatization (including the transfer of title to
private parties) of potable water and wastewater collection utility
systems in North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia (collectively known
as "Utility Privatization Area C")[1] and under RFP No. N62467-00-R-1802,
issued by NAVFAC's Southern Division to conduct a competition for the
privatization of potable water and wastewater collection utility systems
in Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Florida (collectively known as
"Utility Privatization Area E").[2] Veolia complains that NAVFAC rejected,
after significant time and expense by Veolia, a third-party ownership of
the utilities approach (explained below), which was suggested by NAVFAC
and upon which basis Veolia's proposals were selected after the
competition for exclusive negotiation with the agency.[3] Veolia contends
that NAVFAC improperly rejected Veolia's proposals based upon an erroneous
determination that Veolia's proposed contract structure to acquire the
utility assets violated the statute governing the conveyance of those
assets.
We deny the protests.
BACKGROUND
The RFPs, issued October 29, 1999 and March 17, 2000, offered for sale
potable water and wastewater collection utility systems at a number of
facilities. Specifically, offerors were informed that
[t]he purpose of this solicitation is to select an Offeror(s) for the
purpose of privatizing utility systems specified herein. Privatization
is the conveyance of the utility system ownership to a private entity
who will be responsible for the operation, maintenance and
capitalization of the infrastructure for the foreseeable future and for
the provision of safe and reliable utility services to the Department of
the Navy in exchange for reasonable compensation.
RFP No. 3602, at 2; RFP No. 1802, at 2. Service standards and requirements
were identified to ensure that the Navy's operational requirements for
potable water and wastewater collection would be satisfied. See RFP No.
3602, at 15; RFP No. 1802, at 13-15.
Each solicitation noted that authority for utility privatization was
provided by 10 U.S.C. sect. 2688 and that statute, among other things,
imposed certain economic tests that must be met in order for such a
transaction to be consummated. In addition, offerors were cautioned that
all privatization actions must be approved by the Secretary of the Navy
and that there was no guarantee that a privatization agreement would be
executed. RFP No. 3602, at 4; RFP No. 1802, at 4.
Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...