B-298164.2; B-298288, Alfa Consult S.A., August 3, 2006

B-298164.2; B-298288, Alfa Consult S.A., August 3, 2006 TITLE: B-298164.2; B-298288, Alfa Consult S.A., August 3, 2006 BNUMBER: B-298164.2; B-298288 DATE: August 3, 2006 ******************************************************* B-298164.2; B-298288, Alfa Consult S.A., August 3, 2006 Decision Matter of: Alfa Consult S.A. File: B-298164.2; B-298288 Date: August 3, 2006 Paul F. Khoury, Esq., and William J. Grimaldi, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, for the protester. Parag J. Rawal, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency's proposed corrective action--terminating protester's contract, amending solicitation and accepting revised offers--in response to protest from unsuccessful offeror is unnecessary and improper, is denied where agency reasonably concluded that solicitation was unclear regarding whether award would be based on "best value" or low cost/technical acceptability, and that this deficiency could have affected outcome of original competition. DECISION Alfa Consult S.A. protests the decision of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to take corrective action in response to a protest filed by ALMCO, Ltd. in connection with request for proposals (RFP) No. W917BG-06-R-0045 (RFP-0045). We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on January 21, 2006, contemplated the award of "approximately" three fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts to perform construction, renovation, and related projects in Iraq. The RFP included technical and price factors, and provided that awards would be made pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.101-2--which describes the process for awarding a contract on the basis of low cost/technical acceptability--to the offerors who present the "best value" considering technical acceptability, price, and risk. RFP at 12. However, the RFP also listed the relative importance of the technical factors and price, and provided for an adjectival rating of proposals under the technical factors, RFP at 10-11, both of which evaluation elements are relevant only where a cost/technical tradeoff is contemplated. On March 23, the Corps awarded contracts to Alfa and two other offerors on the basis of low cost/technical acceptability. ALMCO challenged the award decision in a protest filed in our Office on April 3, arguing that the Corps's failure to perform a cost/technical tradeoff among the proposals was inconsistent with the solicitation's weighted evaluation criteria. On April 12, the Corps notified our Office that it planned to take corrective action with respect to ALMCO's protest by amending the solicitation to make it clear that award was to be based on low cost/technical acceptability, permitting offerors to submit revised proposals, and conducting a new source selection. We therefore dismissed ALMCO's protest on April 17 (B-298164). On April 29, the Corps notified Alfa that it was terminating its contract for the convenience of the government, and of the intended corrective action. Alfa protests the Corps's decision to take corrective action in response to the ALMCO protest. Alfa argues that, since the solicitation incorporated FAR sect. 15.101-2, which explained that the award would be made on a low cost/technical acceptability basis, with no mention of a cost/technical tradeoff, the basis for award was clear. Alfa concludes that there is no basis for now terminating its properly awarded contract. Contracting agencies have broad discretion to take corrective action where they determine that such action is necessary to ensure a fair and impartial competition. It is not necessary for an agency to conclude that the protest is certain to be sustained before it may take corrective action; where the agency has reasonable concern that there were errors in the procurement, even if the protest could be denied, we view it as within the agency's discretion to take corrective action. Patriot Contract Servs., LLC et al., B-278276.11 et al., Sept. 22, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 77 at 4. An agency may amend a solicitation and request and evaluate another round of proposals where the record shows that the agency's decision to take this action was made in good faith, without the specific intent to change a particular offeror's technical ranking or to avoid making award to a particular offeror. Federal Sec. Sys., Inc., B-281745.2, Apr. 29, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 86 at 5. Here, there is no evidence suggesting that the corrective action was unreasonable or that the agency acted other than in good faith.