B-296483, Rand & Jones Enterprises Company, Inc., August 4, 2005

B-296483 Aug 04, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Rand & Jones Enterprises Company, Inc. protests the cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. 10N3-215-04, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for construction services at the agency's Medical Center in Northport, New York. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-296483, Rand & Jones Enterprises Company, Inc., August 4, 2005 Decision Matter of: Rand & Jones Enterprises Company, Inc. File: B-296483 Date: August 4, 2005 Robert J. Symon, Esq., Spriggs & Hollingsworth, for the protester. Kenneth B. MacKenzie, Esq., and Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, and John W. Klein and Kenneth Dodds, Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency lacked a reasonable basis to cancel a request for proposals (RFP) after disclosure of the offerors' proposed prices where the RFP provided only for a price competition and did not contain technical evaluation factors, the agency intends to issue an invitation for bids for this same requirement, and there is no basis to find the government or the integrity of the procurement system would be prejudiced if the RFP were not cancelled. DECISION Rand & Jones Enterprises Company, Inc. protests the cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. 10N3-215-04, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for construction services at the agency's MedicalCenter in Northport, New York. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued August 2, 2004, provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for the expansion and renovation of the VA's MedicalCenter in Northport. Offerors were requested to propose fixed prices for a base contract line item number (CLIN) and for several alternate CLINs, each of which reflected deletions from the required work. Offerors were also required to propose fixed prices for the maintenance of controls and instrumentation for the project. Offerors were informed that a –single award will be made on the base bid, but in the event the offer exceeds the funds available, a single award will be on alternate number 1.— RFP at 1. The RFP incorporated the standard –Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition— clause of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 52.215-1 that informed offerors that the agency would award a contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government considering the factors and subfactors identified in the solicitation. No technical or non-price related evaluation factors were identified in the solicitation. The RFP also contained the standard –Notification of Competition Limited to Eligible 8(a) Concerns— clause of FAR sect. 52.219-18, which informed offerors that the solicitation was set aside for small business concerns certified by the Small Business Administration (SBA) for participation in SBA's section 8(a) program.[1] VA did not, however, offer the procurement to the SBA for award under the section 8(a) program as was required by SBA's regulations, and therefore the competition was not in fact set aside for section 8(a) concerns.[2] SBA Report at 2. On September 2, the contracting officer was notified by VA's Acquisition Assistance Division that the RFP did not provide any technical evaluation factors. Thereafter, the RFP was amended to require the submission of a bid bond. The agency did not, however, amend the solicitation to provide any technical evaluation factors. On September 14, VA received proposals from four firms, including Rand & Jones and Arrow Construction/BKC, Inc. VA publicly opened the proposals and disclosed the firms' proposed prices.[3] Arrow was the apparent low offeror for the base CLIN. However, Arrow notified the agency that it had made a mistake in its offered price, and requested either an upward price adjustment or the withdrawal of its offer. The contracting officer forwarded Arrow's request to VA's Acquisition Program Management Division, which informed the contracting officer that she could conduct discussions with Arrow and other offerors. This VA office also again informed the contracting officer that the solicitation did not include any technical evaluation factors. VA then discovered that a number of the solicitation's construction drawings required revisions. In addition, the proposals expired. On March 3, 2005, VA again amended the RFP to provide a new set of construction drawings (but did not add technical evaluation factors) and to establish March 24 as a new closing date for submission of offers. VA received revised proposals from the four firms, and again publicly opened the proposals and disclosed the firms' proposed prices.