B-299408, Dellew Corporation, May 1, 2007

B-299408 May 01, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Dellew Corporation protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. AB133F-07-RP-0017, issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, for operation and maintenance services at the Newport Research Center, Newport, Oregon. The protester also argues that the agency failed to reasonably accommodate its request for a site visit. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-299408, Dellew Corporation, May 1, 2007 Decision Matter of: Dellew Corporation File: B-299408 Date: May 1, 2007 Kelsey Lewis for the protester. Terry Hart Lee, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Although as a general matter a contracting agency has broad discretion with regard to the scheduling of site visits, the agency's exercise of that discretion was unreasonable where the protester was unable to attend a timely requested site visit because the agency first informed the protester only one day before the date and time of the site visit that the site visit had been scheduled and unreasonably declined the protester's reasonable request for a later site visit to allow that firm a meaningful opportunity to compete. DECISION Dellew Corporation protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. AB133F-07-RP-0017, issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, for operation and maintenance services at the NewportResearchCenter, Newport, Oregon.[1] The protester also argues that the agency failed to reasonably accommodate its request for a site visit. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued on December 21, 2006, provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for a base period of 1 year with four 1-year options. The RFP included a detailed statement of work and proposal preparation instructions, and advised potential offerors that –all questions concerning [the] solicitation— were to be received by the agency no later than 20 days after December 21.[2] RFP at 70. The RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value to the agency, based upon the listed evaluation factors of past performance, technical approach and expertise, management approach, key personnel, and price. The solicitation also advised offerors as follows with regard to site visits to the facility: Offerors are urged and expected to inspect the site where services are to be performed and to satisfy themselves regarding all general and local conditions that may affect the cost of contract performance, to the extent that the information is reasonably obtainable. In no event shall failure to inspect the site constitute grounds for a claim after contract award. However, due to heightened security, offerors are required to call [the] Contract Specialist or email in advance to make arrangements for a site visit and security access to the site.[3] RFP at 71. Proposals were due to be submitted by January 30, 2007.[4] The record reflects that on Wednesday, January 10, the designated contract specialist received by e-mail from Dellew a number of questions regarding the solicitation and acquisition, with one of the questions asking when the site visit would take place. AR, Tab F(1), Dellew E-mail. The contract specialist replied by e'mail the next day advising, among other things, that Dellew would need to make arrangements for a site visit in advance, and that –[c]urrently, Jan. 17, 18, or 19th (Wednesday-Friday) are dates being made available.— AR, Tab F(1), Contract Specialist E-mail. Dellew asserts that it did not receive this e-mail (until it was later resent, as explained below). According to the contract specialist, she received a voice-mail the following day (Friday, January 12) from an unidentified caller stating that the caller had –questions regarding Newport,— and requesting that the contract specialist return the call at the telephone number provided. The contract specialist adds that her voice-mail greeting stated that she would be out of the office on January 12, and to leave a message and that she would return the call.