Knightsbridge Construction Corporation, B-291475.2, January 10, 2003

B-291475.2 Jan 10, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The agency reasonably considered whether the past projects referenced in proposals were comparable in dollar value as well as complexity. GAO will not sustain protest where it is clear that agency's improper actions did not prejudice protester. Technically acceptable proposal and should have received the award. The work was to include general construction. Award was to be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror. An offeror was required to "[d]emonstrate experience in completing at least three projects of similar type and magnitude within the last five years in active. The RFP also notified offerors that the government estimate for this project was from $2 to $5 million. Were received by the closing date for receipt of proposals. View Decision Knightsbridge Construction Corporation, B-291475.2, January 10, 2003 Attorneys DIGEST DECISION Knightsbridge Construction Corporation protests the rejection of its proposal and the award of a contract to TCL Contractors Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. 10N3-131-02, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for renovation of the dermatology clinic area of a VA Medical Center in New York. Knightsbridge maintains that it submitted the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal and should have received the award, and that the agency improperly conducted exchanges with other offerors, which prejudiced Knightsbridge. We deny the protest. On June 7, 2002, the VA issued this RFP for the renovation of the 8th floor dermatology clinic. The work was to include general construction, alterations, removal of some existing structures, asbestos abatement and monitoring, and mechanical, electrical and plumbing renovations. RFP Para. 1.2. Award was to be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror. RFP amend. 4, at 1. As relevant here, to be considered technically acceptable, an offeror was required to "[d]emonstrate experience in completing at least three projects of similar type and magnitude within the last five years in active, occupied medical facilities on a contract similar in size and scope to this project." The RFP also notified offerors that the government estimate for this project was from $2 to $5 million. The solicitation required that offerors identify each project, the project title, location, and a brief description of the design and construction of the project, including the contracting method, the start and completion dates, the square footage and the cost. Id. at 2. Several proposals, including those of Knightsbridge and TCL, were received by the closing date for receipt of proposals. With respect to the requirement for having completed three projects of similar type and magnitude in occupied medical facilities, Knightsbridge's proposal listed six projects, ranging from $300,000 to $500,000. The VA found that a number of offerors, including TCL, had failed to provide the required dates, size and scope of the projects they identified. Because the lack of information "prevented a fair and reasonable evaluation," on September 24, 2002, the VA contacted these offerors requesting the required information. Agency Report, (AR), Tab 8, Reports of Contact. TCL responded and furnished the required information. On September 26, the technical evaluation board (TEB) evaluated all proposals. Knightsbridge's proposal was found technically unacceptable because the evaluators found that Knightsbridge had failed to identify three projects in occupied medical facilities of similar size and scope. The evaluators specifically found that Knightsbridge's listed projects were small in dollar value and therefore not similar in size to the current requirement. The largest dollar value of any single project listed by Knightsbridge for occupied medical facilities was $516,000, as compared to the government estimate range of $2 to $5 million for the current project. Award was made to TLC at $1,720,400, as the offeror that submitted the low priced, technically acceptable proposal. After receiving a debriefing, Knightsbridge filed this protest. Knightsbridge first argues that its listed projects met the experience requirements. Knightsbridge argues that it understood "similar in size and scope" to mean square footage and that all its identified projects involved square footage that was greater than the subject project. Knightsbridge's position is that the evaluators improperly considered size to include dollar value. Knightsbridge's challenge to the evaluation is without merit. As stated above, the RFP required offerors to demonstrate experience completing at least three projects in the past 5 years similar in size and scope to this project. The solicitation explicitly asked offerors to identify the cost of the projects identified, as well as the square footage and other criteria.