Consortium HSG Technischer Service GmbH and GeBe Gebäude- und, B-292699.4, February 24, 2004

B-292699.4 Feb 24, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably concluded that discussions held before the previous award decision may not have been adequate to advise one of the offerors of significant weaknesses in its proposal. If the decision is to award to HSG. Is an abuse of agency discretion. The award at issue was for one of four geographic regions covered by the solicitation. This region was referred to in the RFP as area IV. The CMPP is the principal meat-packing plant for the U.S. forces in Europe. Offerors were required to have a refrigeration "meister" on staff. /1/ To demonstrate the availability of required meisters. Offerors were instructed to append meister certificates to their technical proposals. View Decision Consortium HSG Technischer Service GmbH and GeBe Gebaude- und Betriebstechnik GmbH Sudwest Co.,B-292699.4, February 24, 2004 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Consortium HSG Technischer Service GmbH and GeBe Gebaud- und Betriebstechnik GmbH Sudwest Co., Management KG (HSG) protests the corrective action taken by the Department of the Army in response to HSG's protest of the Army's award of a contract to SKE GmbH/Siemens Geb a udemanagement GmbH & Co. OHG, Joint Venture (SKE) for preventive maintenance and repairs of facilities and equipment used by the Defense Commissary Agency in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Specifically, the agency decided to reopen discussions, request revised proposals, conduct new evaluations, make a new selection decision, and if the decision is to award to HSG, terminate the award to SKE. HSG argues that the agency's corrective action should be limited to a reevaluation of the proposals as submitted. It contends that reopening discussions and requesting revised proposals unfairly favors SKE, and is an abuse of agency discretion. We deny the protest. As indicated above, the solicitation here, request for proposals (RFP) No. DABN01-03-R-0010, contemplated award of a contract for preventive maintenance and repairs at facilities used by the Defense Commissary Agency in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands. The award at issue was for one of four geographic regions covered by the solicitation; this region was referred to in the RFP as area IV. Area IV includes not only a portion of the regular commissary facilities identified in the RFP, but also includes the Central Meat Processing Plant (CMPP), located at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. The CMPP is the principal meat-packing plant for the U.S. forces in Europe, and contains highly sophisticated refrigeration equipment, which must operate without interruption both to preserve meat and to permit ongoing meat-packing activities. The RFP required offerors to submit certain specific types of information with their proposals. For example, with respect to the area of technical staffing, and the requirement that the contractor repair and maintain certain sophisticated refrigeration equipment in use at the locations within area IV, offerors were required to have a refrigeration "meister" on staff. /1/ To demonstrate the availability of required meisters, offerors were instructed to append meister certificates to their technical proposals. The RFP included similarly detailed instructions and requests for information in other areas. The gravamen of HSG's earlier protest was that the agency's favorable evaluation of SKE disregarded SKE's failure to provide the required documentation in several areas. These areas included the solicitation's requirement, set forth above, of identifying a refrigeration meister for area IV, as well as the requirements for providing evidence of necessary licenses and permits required by the host nation of Germany, and providing evidence of adequate capitalization to perform the work. HSG also argued that the agency's evaluation of SKE's past performance was unreasonable. After all pleadings on both the initial and supplemental protests were submitted, and after our Office convened two conference calls to clarify the record about the content of the proposals, oral presentations, and subsequent discussions, the agency decided to take corrective action in response to HSG's protest. As explained during the course of the current protest, the agency reached its decision because "the Protester made several key points that the Army could not effectively refute." Agency Report, Dec. 17, 2003, at 4. HSG's challenge to the proposed corrective action is that the agency should only reevaluate proposals and make a new selection decision; it asserts that reopening discussions and requesting revised proposals improperly will allow SKE to address shortcomings in its proposal. The agency answers that responding to the protest revealed to it "that the awardee's proposal may have significant weaknesses that disqualify it from award." Id. at 7.