The Austin Company, B-291482, January 7, 2003

B-291482 Jan 07, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency properly excluded protester's proposal from the competitive range where protester's proposal was reasonably evaluated as requiring a virtual rewrite due to its failure to comply with the solicitation requirements under each of four evaluation factors. Austin protests that exclusion of its proposal was based on the agency's unreasonable application of the solicitation's stated evaluation factors. Offerors were required to submit "qualifications" proposals. These proposals were thereafter reviewed and evaluated. " the amended RFP also provided as follows: The target ceiling for contract award for the design and construction is $38. The Government cannot guarantee that additional funds will be made available for award. View Decision The Austin Company, B-291482, January 7, 2003 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The Austin Company protests the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' elimination of Austin's proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA31-02-R-0013 to design and construct an advanced chemistry laboratory (ACL) at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Austin protests that exclusion of its proposal was based on the agency's unreasonable application of the solicitation's stated evaluation factors. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On December 19, 2001, the agency issued RFP No. DACA31-02-R-0013, seeking proposals for the design and construction of an ACL research facility, advising offerors that the facility would be dedicated to "the study of super-toxic chemical warfare agents, lethal industrial materials, related weapons of mass destruction, and defensive counter-measures." Agency Report, exh. 1, RFP at 5. Due to the facility's intended use, the solicitation directed that the proposals "shall employ the necessary engineering controls and building systems to accommodate a safe working environment," advising offerors that "this project has critical life safety, health and environmental issues." Id. In this context, the solicitation further directed that proposed facilities must include, among other things, "custom-built chemical fume hoods," "ultra-efficient carbon and HEPA [high efficiency particulate air] filters in the exhaust systems," and "sophisticated ventilation and air distributions systems and environmental controls." Id. The solicitation provided that the procurement would be conducted in two phases. In phase I, offerors were required to submit "qualifications" proposals, consisting of information regarding their past performance, prior experience, and technical qualifications. Agency Report, exh. 1, RFP at 13. The solicitation explained that, following review of phase I proposals, the agency would issue an RFP amendment containing the design and construction requirements for phase II proposals, and would request proposals from the most qualified phase I offerors. On February 15, 2002, eleven offerors, including Austin, submitted phase I proposals; these proposals were thereafter reviewed and evaluated. Based on that evaluation, the agency selected six offerors, including Austin, to proceed to phase II. On July 2, the agency issued RFP amendment No. 0004, establishing the requirements and evaluation criteria for phase II proposals. Agency Report, exh. 2(D). As finally amended, the RFP provided that the agency's source selection decision would be made on a "Best Over-all Value" basis considering both price and non-price factors, and established the following, equally weighted non-price factors: materials and equipment; subcontractor qualifications, past performance and personnel; review of presented design and criteria; and oral presentations. /1/ Under the heading "cost limitation," the amended RFP also provided as follows: The target ceiling for contract award for the design and construction is $38,000,000 based on funds made available for this project. The Government cannot guarantee that additional funds will be made available for award. Offerors are under no obligation to approach this ceiling. Agency Report, exh. 2(G), at 3. On August 22, five of the offerors selected to proceed to phase II, including Austin, submitted price and technical proposals; thereafter, each offeror made an oral presentation to the agency's evaluators. Following oral presentations, the agency's technical evaluation committee (TEC) rated each offeror's proposal under an adjectival rating system using the following ratings: "excellent," "above average," "high average," "average," "low average," "poor" and "unacceptable." Agency Report, exh. 8, at 2. Austin's proposal received ratings under each of the four non-price evaluation factors reflecting its failure to meet some or all of the requirements for the factor.