GAO Report from B-293864.2

B-293864.2 Oct 25, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc. (CESI) protests the actions of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in its implementation of corrective action in response to CESI's protest of NARA's award of a contract to LB&B Associates, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. NAMA-03-R-0009, for consolidated facility management services. We deny the protest. View Decision B-293864.2, Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc., October 25, 2004 Decision Matter of: Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc. File: B-293864.2 Date: October 25, 2004 William A. Roberts, III, Esq., Philip J. Davis, Esq., Michael S. Caldwell, Esq., and John A. McCullough, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding, for the protester. Benjamin N. Thompson, Esq., and Jennifer M. Miller, Esq., Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton, and Frank M. Rapoport, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge, for LB&B Associates, Inc., an intervenor. Stephani L. Abramson, Esq., and Gary L. Brooks, Esq., National Archives & Records Administration, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. In taking corrective action in response to bid protest, agency acted within its discretion in limiting proposal revisions to updating key personnel/subcontractor information, and precluding price revisions, where agency reasonably concluded that only this information was needed, and that price revisions would undermine integrity of procurement due to disclosure of awardee's price after original award. 2. Where solicitation for facility management services called for offerors' proposals to take into account work to be performed in areas undergoing construction and renovation and provided for post-award adjustments, completion of that work during delay occasioned by bid protest does not represent material change requiring agency to amend solicitation to obtain revised price proposals. 3. Protest that new collective bargaining agreements (CBA) and wage determination require agency to allow price revisions under reopened competition in response to bid protest is denied where protester fails to demonstrate that changes under new CBAs and wage determination were significant such that price revisions based on those changes could materially improve its competitive position. Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc. (CESI) protests the actions of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in its implementation of corrective action in response to CESI's protest of NARA's award of a contract to LB&B Associates, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. NAMA-03-R-0009, for consolidated facility management services. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP sought proposals to provide all program management, engineering, and services required to operate and maintain the agency's facilities in Washington, D.C. (Archives I) and College Park, Maryland (Archives II). The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year, with 4 option years. Proposals were to be evaluated under four factors--management approach, technical understanding, relative past performance, and price. The three non-price factors were of equal value and, combined, were of significantly greater value than price. Award was to be made on a "best value" basis. Five offerors, including LB&B, and the incumbent contractor, CESI, submitted proposals by the June 9, 2003 closing time. The proposals were evaluated by the technical evaluation panel (TEP). While no formal discussions were held, offerors were invited to submit revised proposals after the RFP was amended to delete a requirement. The TEP concluded that the proposals of CESI, LB&B, and a third offeror were technically equivalent and, since LB&B's proposal offered the lowest price of the three, recommended it for the award. The contracting officer agreed and awarded LB&B the contract on February 27, 2004. After a debriefing, CESI filed its initial protest, on March 19, challenging various aspects of the evaluation, the conduct of discussions, and the source selection. Some of these issues centered around the propriety of LB&B's post-award plan to substitute some of its key personnel. NARA filed an agency report and both CESI and LB&B submitted comments. On May 11, our Office conducted an "outcome prediction" alternative dispute resolution (ADR) telephone conference with the parties, during which our attorney advised the parties that the only issue with apparent merit was that concerning the past performance evaluation. In response, NARA proposed to take corrective action in the form of re-evaluating the offerors' past performance and making a new award determination. Based on this proposed corrective action, we dismissed the protest as academic (B293864).