GAO Report from B-291868

B-291868 Apr 23, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Contracting officer has authority to decide when negotiation and offer stage of a procurement is finished and an offeror has no legal right to insist that negotiations be reopened to permit a site substitution. After final revised proposals have been submitted. 2. Agency may not accept protester's site change request as a late modification to an "otherwise successful proposal that makes its terms more favorable to the Government" where record fails to show that protester's proposal was in line for award. The RFP further provided that the agency would conduct an on-site evaluation of an offeror's location and facility before any negotiations to ascertain if the site was in compliance or capable of being brought into compliance with contractual requirements. View Decision Dismas Charities, Inc., B-291868, April 23, 2003 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Dismas Charities, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. 200-0723-SC, issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for residential community corrections center services in Corpus Christi, Texas. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on January 22, 2002, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, requirements contract for a 2-year base period with up to three 1-year option periods. The contractor would be required to provide residential community corrections center services for male and female federal offenders in the Corpus Christi area. The solicitation provided that the evaluation would be based on past performance, technical, management, and cost factors, with past performance being the most important factor and the remaining factors being of equal weight. The technical factor included consideration of the proposed facility's suitability, age, condition, location, and compliance with National Fire Protection Association life/safety standards. In this regard, the RFP required offerors to provide documentation regarding their right to use the facility, evidence of notifications to law enforcement and elected officials, and floor plans. RFP Sec. L.8(a). The RFP further provided that the agency would conduct an on-site evaluation of an offeror's location and facility before any negotiations to ascertain if the site was in compliance or capable of being brought into compliance with contractual requirements. The RFP also provided that only one request for a change in an offeror's proposed facility would be approved and that the request had to be received by the contracting officer prior to submission of the firm's final proposal revision. RFP Sec. L.8(g)(3). A site change request was to include all site information documentation required by the RFP. Award was to be made on the basis of the proposal determined to represent the best value to the government. Only two firms, Dismas and Bannum, Inc., submitted initial proposals by the March 22, 2002, closing date and the agency conducted written technical discussions with both offerors from May to July 2002. By letter dated October 8, 2002, both offerors were advised that the evaluation of technical proposals was complete and that final proposal revisions were due by October 15. After receipt of final proposal revisions, the technical evaluation panel evaluated prices and past performance and forwarded the results to the technical evaluation chairperson for review and final scoring. /1/ The post-protest agency report to our Office states that at this time, Dismas "was apparently in line for award, and the recommendation was being reviewed." Legal Opinion and Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. On December 19, Dismas notified the agency that the firm was unable to maintain control of its proposed site because the property had been sold to another buyer; Dismas asked to change its proposed site, stating that its new site made its proposal more favorable because the property: (1) was more centrally located and closer to downtown Corpus Christi and essential employment, emergency and social services, as well as numerous potential employers,(2) offered excellent access to public transportation,(3) did not diminish the community support Dismas had worked to achieve, and (4) would allow Dismas to reduce demolition and renovation work. Dismas, however, did not include all the site documentation with its request as required by the RFP. By letter dated January 2, 2003, Dismas was advised that its request for a site change could not be accepted and that its proposal was excluded from the competitive range because it no longer had an acceptable facility, and it would further delay the award of the contract to allow the change of site. The agency subsequently recommended Bannum, which proposed an acceptable site and a lower price than Dismas, for award.