Zafer Construction Company; Kolin Construction, Tourism, Industry and Trading Co. Inc., B-295903; B-295903.2, May 9, 2005

Zafer Construction Company; Kolin Construction, Tourism, Industry and Trading Co. Inc., B-295903; B-295903.2, May 9, 2005 TITLE: Zafer Construction Company; Kolin Construction, Tourism, Industry and Trading Co. Inc., B-295903; B-295903.2, May 9, 2005 BNUMBER: B-295903; B-295903.2 DATE: May 9, 2005 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Zafer Construction Company; Kolin Construction, Tourism, Industry and Trading Co. Inc. File: B-295903; B-295903.2 Date: May 9, 2005 Sheril D. Collins, Zafer Construction Company and Guenduez S. Guengen and Naci Kologlu, Kolin Construction, Tourism, Industry and Trading Co. Inc., for the protesters. Stephen G. Anderson, Esq., Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, for Framaco-Epik-Metis Joint Venture, an intervenor. Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated protester's proposal is denied where record shows that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with stated evaluation criteria, and protester's contentions amount to disagreement with the evaluation. 2. Protest that award was improper because awardee was unable, after award, to obtain site identified in its proposal for construction of man camp, is denied where solicitation did not require firm commitment or executed lease for sites identified in proposals. DECISION Zafer Construction Company and Kolin Construction, Tourism, Industry and Trading Co. Inc. protest the award of a contract to Framaco-Epik-Metis (FEM) Joint Venture under request for proposals (RFP) No. SGE500-04-R-1122, issued by the Department of State, American Consulate General, Frankfurt, Germany, for the design and construction of a "man camp facility" for the United States Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. Both protesters argue that the agency improperly evaluated their proposals and that the award to FEM was improper. We deny the protests. The RFP, issued October 18, 2004, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for the construction of a 500-person residential camp for the U.S. Embassy security force, to include, among other things, housing units, dining, laundry, bath and recreational facilities, office/training and classroom facilities, walkways, an infirmary, and vehicle maintenance and weapons storage facilities. The RFP included a detailed statement of work (SOW) outlining the contractor's responsibilities and including, for example, a description of the required buildings, the utility and drainage requirements, and required access roads. Award was to be made on a "best value" basis considering price, present and past performance, and technical/business management, which included the following subfactors: (1) project schedule, (2) technical description, (3) management, (4)A safety, and (5) quality control plan. As relevant here, under the technical description subfactor, the solicitation specifically stated that the agency would evaluate proposals for site layout--considering whether facilities were located in a logical manner and provided occupants easy access to each facility--and site selection--considering, among other things, whether the proposed site was within a reasonable distance of the Embassy, provided the guard contractor easy control of the site, ensured the highest degree of physical security, and provided multiple avenues of entrance. The technical/business management factor was more important than price and present/past performance, which were of equal importance. The RFP stated that the agency intended to award a contract without discussions and that initial proposals therefore should contain offerors' best technical and cost terms. The RFP further advised that a 10-percent price reduction would be applied, for evaluation purposes, to offers submitted by American-owned firms. RFP section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents, identified a possible site--part of the Afghani Army Camp--that "may be an available site for the man camp." RFP, Amend. 4, at 3, 7. The solicitation advised that the government would offer some assistance in arranging a 5-year lease, with an option to extend, for this site. Id. at 7. However, the RFP also specifically stated that this site was provided "only as a potential solution for those offerors that are unable to identify locations elsewhere. This is not the Government preferred site." RFP, Amend. 5, at 2.