DGC International

B-410364.2 Nov 26, 2014 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DGC International (DGC) of Vienna, Virginia, protests the corrective action proposed by U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in connection with the agency's procurement of logistical support services for USAID's mission in Afghanistan under request for proposals (RFP) No. SOL-306-14-000014. USAID took corrective action in response to DGC's earlier protest, which we subsequently dismissed as academic. See DGC Int'l, B-410364, Sept. 18, 2014. DGC argues that the corrective action is improper because it does not remedy what DGC views as the underlying defects in the agency's initial evaluation. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: DGC International File: B-410364.2 Date: November 26, 2014 Ayman Bekdash, DGC International, for the protester. Scott Risner, Esq., United States Agency for International Development, for the agency. Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging an agency’s proposed corrective action, which included reopening discussions, requesting revised proposals, and making a new award decision, is denied where the agency reasonably determined that it had conducted unequal discussions and that corrective action was necessary to remedy the error. DECISION DGC International (DGC) of Vienna, Virginia, protests the corrective action proposed by U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in connection with the agency’s procurement of logistical support services for USAID’s mission in Afghanistan under request for proposals (RFP) No. SOL-306-14-000014. USAID took corrective action in response to DGC’s earlier protest, which we subsequently dismissed as academic. See DGC Int’l, B-410364, Sept. 18, 2014. DGC argues that the corrective action is improper because it does not remedy what DGC views as the underlying defects in the agency’s initial evaluation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on May 14, 2014, and provided for the award of a fixed‑price, 2‑year contract for logistical support services (such as warehousing, open-air staging, and property management services) to support USAID’s efforts to reutilize and distribute foreign excess personal property available after the drawdown of international forces in Afghanistan. See RFP at 7; attach. J1, Statement of Objectives, at 1.[1] The solicitation stated that award would be made to the best value offeror based upon the agency’s evaluation of the following four factors: technical approach, organization and key personnel, past performance, and price. RFP at 55. The RFP established that the agency intended to make award without conducting discussions, but reserved the right to do so if necessary. Id. at 45, 60. USAID received 38 proposals in response to the solicitation and established a competitive range among four of the offerors (including DGC). Contracting Officer’s (CO) Statement at 1‑2. The agency conducted discussions with the offerors in the competitive range and requested revised proposals. Id. Based upon USAID’s evaluation of the revised proposals, the agency awarded a contract on August 30. On September 9, following the agency’s notice of award and debriefing, DGC filed a protest with our Office challenging USAID’s rejection of DGC’s proposal and source selection decision. See DGC Int’l, Protest, Sept. 9, 2014. On September 16, USAID informed our Office of its intent to take corrective action in response to DGC’s September 9 protest. Notice of Corrective Action at 1. As part of its corrective action, the agency stated that it would reopen discussions with the offerors in the competitive range, request revised proposals, evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new selection decision. Id. On September 17, USAID canceled the contract award and reopened discussions with the four offerors in the competitive range. See, e.g., Agency Report (AR), Tab 17, DGC Discussions, Sept. 17, 2014. We dismissed DGC’s protest as academic on September 18. DGC Int’l, supra. This protest followed. DISCUSSION DGC protests the agency’s proposed corrective action, arguing that it is does not remedy the procurement improprieties alleged in DGC’s original protest, namely, that USAID’s evaluation and source selection decision were biased (in favor of the awardee) and based on unstated evaluation criteria. See Protest at 2. The protester contends that the agency does not have a reasonable basis for reopening discussions and requesting further proposal revisions. Id. In response to the protester’s allegations, USAID states that, after receiving DGC’s September 9 protest, the agency reviewed the procurement and determined that it may have conducted unequal discussions with offerors in the competitive range. AR at 3.