A-1 Service Company, Inc., B-291568, January 16, 2003

B-291568 Jan 16, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal as technically unacceptable is unobjectionable where the proposal failed to adequately address solicitation requirements even after protester had been apprised of the concerns repeatedly during discussions. A-1 contends that the agency's evaluation of its proposal as technically unacceptable was unreasonable. The requirements were divided among three contract line items (CLIN). Were a number of drawings which depicted the work to be performed under the contract. The successful offeror was to perform the project in accordance with the statement of work. Offerors were instructed to submit proposals in sufficient detail to demonstrate their full understanding of the solicitation requirements and not to simply restate or rephrase the government's requirements. View Decision A-1 Service Company, Inc., B-291568, January 16, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION A-1 Service Company, Inc. (A-1) protests the award of a contract to L.C. Gaskins Construction Company, Inc. (LCG) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F09650-02-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Air Force, Warner Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC), to repair the compressed air system and to construct a building addition to house the compressor plant at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia. A-1 contends that the agency's evaluation of its proposal as technically unacceptable was unreasonable. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose technically acceptable proposal represented the best value to the government, considering past performance and price. The requirements were divided among three contract line items (CLIN). CLIN 0001, to repair the compressed air system in Building 83; CLIN 0002, to construct the addition in Building 83; and CLIN 0003, to dispose of contaminated soil. Included with the RFP, as amended, were a number of drawings which depicted the work to be performed under the contract, and the successful offeror was to perform the project in accordance with the statement of work, specifications and drawings. RFP Sec.RFP Schedule, at 3-4; RFP Specifications, as amended by addendum Nos. 1-5. To be considered technically acceptable, offerors were instructed to submit proposals in sufficient detail to demonstrate their full understanding of the solicitation requirements and not to simply restate or rephrase the government's requirements. RFP Sec. L-900(c)(a), at 31. Trade-offs would be made between past performance and price with offerors whose proposals were evaluated as technically acceptable. Id. As relevant here, the solicitation stated that the proposal should demonstrate appropriate approaches to stormwater protection and responding to unforeseen soil contamination during horizontal directional drilling. RFP Sec. L-900(c)(b), at 31. The referenced RFP provisions also required offerors to address air monitoring at point of soil removal, testing of soil samples, providing separate roll-off or drums for containing any contaminated soil, and delivering the soil to the DRMO (Defense Reutilization Marketing Office) contractor for disposal. Cost for disposal only was to be reimbursed under the unit price line item. RFP Drawing Plate C-103, Note 2, as amended by addendum No. 2 Para. I(c), June 27, 2002, at 1. The agency received initial proposals from A-1, LCG, and a third offeror (not relevant here) by the July 29 extended closing date. The agency evaluators determined that both proposals were technically unacceptable but were nevertheless capable of being made acceptable. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. The agency conducted discussions using written evaluation notices (EN) to inform the offerors of the specific deficiencies and weaknesses identified in their respective proposals. Agency Report (AR), exh. 6(a), ENs. The deficiency relevant to this protest was that A-1's technical proposal "failed to address the directional drill requirements." The protester specifically was informed that it needed to provide "all information required by Section L-900(c)(b)(1), first unnumbered sub-paragraph." AR, exh. 6(a), EN No. A1-T-01 (Aug. 28, 2002). The referenced subparagraph required offerors to demonstrate "appropriate approaches to unforeseen soil contamination" during the drilling process. RFP Sec. L-900(c)(b)(1), at 31. On September 9, the agency conducted a second round of discussions only with A-1 to request additional information because in response to the initial EN the firm had not adequately addressed the unforeseen soil contamination requirements during directional drilling as set forth in Sections L-900(c) and M-900(b) of the RFP.