B-299523, Head Inc., June 8, 2007

B-299523 Jun 08, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Head Inc., protests the award of a contract to Hi-Way Paving, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912QR-07-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers for airfield runway upgrades at Johnstown-Cambria Airport in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Head argues that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the firm which resulted in an unreasonable price/technical tradeoff. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299523, Head Inc., June 8, 2007 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Head Inc. File: B-299523 Date: June 8, 2007 Richard D. Lieberman, Esq., and Nicole S. Allen, Esq., McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, PC, for the protester. James H. Roberts, III, Esq., and Carrol H. Kinsey, Jr., Esq., Van Scoyoc Kelly PLLC, for Hi-Way Paving, Inc., an intervenor. Allen E. Sebastian, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with protester by not raising concerns about what was, in essence, an alternate proposal to compress the construction schedule for this effort from 38 months to 11 months, with no supporting documentation, is denied where the protester offered the compressed construction schedule in a two-sentence response to the solicitation's call for –betterments,— which were defined as components or systems that would exceed the solicitation's stated minimums, and the agency reasonably elected to view the response as inconsistent with the kind of improvements sought by the solicitation, and did not raise the matter during otherwise appropriate discussions, or consider it further in any way. DECISION Head Inc., protests the award of a contract to Hi-Way Paving, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912QR-07-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers for airfield runway upgrades at Johnstown-CambriaAirport in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Head argues that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the firm which resulted in an unreasonable price/technical tradeoff. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals for design-build construction services for airfield runway upgrades. The construction project was divided into a base requirement and six option requirements, such as turnaround pads, fence upgrades, runway shoulders, and shoulder lighting. The RFP advised that the successful contractor would commence work within 10 days after receipt of the notice to proceed, and that the entire project must be completed not later than 1,140 calendar days after receipt of the notice to proceed. RFP at 4, 22. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract, with a Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) Zone small business concern price evaluation preference, to the offeror whose proposal represented the –best value— to the government, all factors considered. The RFP listed, in descending order of importance, the following technical or non-price evaluation factors and subfactors: (1) experience (prime contractor experience and design team experience); (2) past performance (prime contractor past performance, design team past performance, and past performance on utilization of small businesses); and (3) management. Id. at 10-12. The RFP also provided that proposed prices would be evaluated for realism and reasonableness and stated that the technical or non-price evaluation factors when combined were equal to price. Id. The RFP included detailed instructions for the preparation of technical and price proposals, and offerors were advised to prepare their proposals in sufficient detail to enable the agency to make an effective and equitable evaluation of the offeror's experience, technical approach and management capabilities to successfully complete the project. Id. at 7. As it relates to this protest, the RFP advised that: Requirements stated in this RFP are minimums. Innovative, creative or cost-saving proposals that meet or exceed the requirements are encouraged and will be rated accordingly. Any deviations from requirements should be clearly noted and justified in the proposal. Id.In addition, offerors were informed that they could propose what the solicitation termed –betterments,— which were defined as –any component or system which exceeds the minimum requirements stated in the [RFP].— Id. at 23. With regard to price, the RFP required offerors to complete the solicitation's price schedule which included separate line items for the base and option requirements.