B-297447.2, Gemmo-CCC, July 13, 2006

B-297447.2 Jul 13, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Gemmo-CCC protests the award of a contract to Consortium Montservis-DeFranceschi under request for proposals (RFP) No. N33191-02-R-1063, issued by the Department of the Navy to upgrade the electrical power distribution system at Aviano Air Base, Italy. The protester contends that the evaluation of proposals was improper and that the firm should have been given an opportunity to cure a cited deficiency in its proposal regarding its omission of low voltage switchboard equipment vendor product data, and other cited weaknesses in the proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297447.2, Gemmo-CCC, July 13, 2006 Decision Matter of: Gemmo-CCC File: B-297447.2 Date: July 13, 2006 Reed von Maur, Esq., for the protester. Damon A. Martin, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest of evaluation and award is denied where the record shows that the agency's source selection was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation factors. 2. Protest that agency should have engaged in clarifications with protester to resolve material omissions in its proposal is denied since any such exchange would have constituted discussions, not clarifications, and agency generally has no obligation to hold discussions where, as in the solicitation at issue, it put offerors on notice of its intent to make award on the basis of initial proposals. DECISION Gemmo-CCC protests the award of a contract to Consortium Montservis-DeFranceschi under request for proposals (RFP) No. N33191-02-R-1063, issued by the Department of the Navy to upgrade the electrical power distribution system at Aviano Air Base, Italy. The protester contends that the evaluation of proposals was improper and that the firm should have been given an opportunity to cure a cited deficiency in its proposal regarding its omission of low voltage switchboard equipment vendor product data, and other cited weaknesses in the proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on June 10, 2005, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to the firm with the proposal determined to offer the best value to the agency considering organizational past performance, technical approach, and price; the first two factors were of equal importance, and, combined, were equally weighted with price. RFP at 19. The RFP instructed that initial proposals were to contain the firms' best terms, since award upon initial proposals was anticipated, without conducting discussions (although the agency reserved the right to conduct discussions, if determined necessary). Id. at 13, 17. For the evaluation of past performance, each offeror was to demonstrate its successful management of relevant and similar contracts within parameters set out in the solicitation. For the evaluation of technical approach, each offeror was to provide vendor product data sheets to demonstrate that the equipment it proposed complies with industry standards and solicitation specifications, and that it is a regularly produced design. Id. at 20. Vendor product data sheets were to be provided for seven types of proposed equipment: high voltage switchgear, low voltage switchboard, cast resin transformer, medium voltage cable, medium voltage terminator, medium voltage splice, and protective relay system. RFP amend. 3, at 2. Vendor product data sheets detailing this equipment were to describe its main characteristics, product standards, dimensions and ratings, ordering codes, warranty, and manufacturer-recommended maintenance requirements. Id. Adjectival ratings were to be assigned to the proposals under the past performance and technical approach evaluation factors. Ratings were to range from –excellent— to –poor— (the latter rating was to be assigned where a proposal contained –major errors, omissions, significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies—). RFP at 17-18. The RFP further advised that only proposals rated at least –satisfactory— were to be considered for award; a proposal rated –marginal— or –poor— in any category, if not improved through discussions, would result in the overall technical proposal being rated –marginal— or –poor— and thus ineligible for award. Id. at 19. Six proposals were received and evaluated. The initial award, made to Consortium Montservis-DeFranceschi on September 23, 2005, was protested by Gemmo-CCC; that protest was dismissed as academic after the agency reported that it was going to reevaluate the proposals. On March 27, 2006, Gemmo-CCC was informed that upon reevaluation, its technical proposal, cited as having a deficiency for omitting required vendor product data, was rated –poor— and deemed ineligible for award.