Consortium HSG Technischer Service GmbH and GeBe Gebäude- und, B-292699.6, June 24, 2004

B-292699.6 Jun 24, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Consortium HSG Technischer Service GmbH and GeBe Gebdude- und Betriebstechnik GmbH S|dwest Co., Management KG (HSG) protests a decision by the Department of the Army to reselect SKE GmbH/Siemens Gebdudemanagement und Services GmbH & Co. OHG, Joint Venture (SKE/SGM), as its contractor for preventive maintenance and repairs of facilities and equipment used by the Defense Commissary Agency in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands. HSG complains that the sale of SGM after the submission of final proposal revisions (FPR) but prior to the agency's reselection decision, rendered the evaluation of SKE/SGM's proposal unreasonable.HSG also argues that the agency will not be able to enter into a novation agreement with SKE/SGM under the circumstances here. We deny the protest. View Decision B-292699.6, Consortium HSG Technischer Service GmbH and GeBe Gebude- und, June 24, 2004 Decision Matter of: Consortium HSG Technischer Service GmbH and GeBe Gebude- und Betriebstechnik GmbH Sdwest Co., Management KG File: B-292699.6 Date: June 24, 2004 Reed L. von Maur, Esq., for the protester. Paul D. Reinsdorf, Esq., Reinsdorf & Associates, for Joint Venture SKE GmbH-Siemens Gebudemanagement und Services GmbH & Co. OHG, an intervenor. Maj. Gregg A. Engler, Department of the Army, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester's contention that a change in ownership of one of the two entities comprising a joint venture, which occurred between the time offerors submitted final proposal revisions and the award decision, renders the agency's evaluation of the joint venture's proposal unreasonable, is denied where the record shows that, although the entity's ownership and name were changed, the entity remains intact, retains the same location and offices, and promises to honor its previous commitments, and where there is no showing in the record that the resources offered by this entity have been rendered unavailable, or have in any way changed, as a result in the change of ownership. DECISION Consortium HSG Technischer Service GmbH and GeBe Gebude- und Betriebstechnik GmbH Sdwest Co., Management KG (HSG) protests a decision by the Department of the Army to reselect SKE GmbH/Siemens Gebudemanagement und Services GmbH & Co. OHG, Joint Venture (SKE/SGM), as its contractor for preventive maintenance and repairs of facilities and equipment used by the Defense Commissary Agency in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands. HSG complains that the sale of SGM after the submission of final proposal revisions (FPR) but prior to the agency's reselection decision, rendered the evaluation of SKE/SGM's proposal unreasonable.HSG also argues that the agency will not be able to enter into a novation agreement with SKE/SGM under the circumstances here. We deny the protest. The Army's request for proposals (RFP) No. DABN01-03-R-0010 contemplated award of a mixed fixed-price and time-and-materials requirements 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, the principal meat-packing plant for the U.S. forces in Europe, which is located at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. In response to the initial award, HSG protested to our Office that the agency's favorable evaluation of SKE/SGM's proposal disregarded the proposal's failure to provide required documentation in several areas. After all pleadings on both the initial and a supplemental protest were submitted, the Army decided to reopen discussions, request revised proposals, conduct new evaluations, and make a new selection decision (to include terminating the initial award to SKE/SGM if HSG prevailed in the reopened competition). As a result, we dismissed HSG's protest of the initial award. HSG also filed a protest challenging the breadth of the Army's corrective action, arguing that the corrective action should be limited to a reevaluation of the proposals as submitted. We denied this protest. Consortium HSG Technischer Service GmbH and GeBe Gebude- und Betriebstechnik GmbH Sdwest Co., Management KG, B-292699.4, Feb. 24, 2004, 2004 CPD 44. After deciding to reopen the competition, in November 2003, and after holding discussions, the Army requested submission of FPRs by December 19, 2003.