Sohail Global Group

B-413132 Aug 09, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sohail Global Group (SGG), of Kabul, Afghanistan, protests its elimination from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. W5J9JE-16-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (USACE), for construction projects in Afghanistan. SGG maintains that USACE unreasonably found the firm non-responsible. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Sohail Global Group File:  B-413132 Date:  August 9, 2016 Aashiqullah Zazai, for the protester. Jenny N. Masunaga, Esq., Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Paula J. Haurilesko, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably found an Afghan firm non-responsible because it was ineligible for access to a military installation is denied, where the record shows that, based on classified information that could not be disclosed to the protester but was reviewed by our Office, the agency did not abuse its discretion in finding the firm non-responsible. DECISION Sohail Global Group (SGG), of Kabul, Afghanistan, protests its elimination from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. W5J9JE-16-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (USACE), for construction projects in Afghanistan.  SGG maintains that USACE unreasonably found the firm non-responsible. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, a two-phase solicitation, provided for the award of up to 12 fixed-price indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts to support construction projects in the USACE Transatlantic Afghanistan district’s area of operations.[1]  The procurement was limited to Afghan firms pursuant to section 886 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Pub. Law No. 110-181).  Performance was to occur over a 1-year base period and four option years.  RFP at 10.[2] The RFP stated that in phase I of the competition, proposals would be evaluated for past performance, specialized experience, organizational management and execution plan, and technical approach for design-build projects.  Id. at 22.  At the end of phase I the government would invite 15-20 offerors to submit proposals for phase 2.  Id. at 21. The RFP included Central Command (CENTCOM) clause 5152.225-5916, Mandatory Eligibility for Installation Access, which requires the prime contractor and all subcontractors to be initially eligible for installation access to a U.S. and/or Coalition installation, and to remain eligible during the entire period of contract performance.  The clause states that, to be eligible for installation access, the offeror must be registered and approved in the Joint Contingency Contracting System (JCCS) database prior to award.  The clause further states that failure to be approved in the JCCS database may render the offeror ineligible for award, and that the offeror would be deemed non-responsible until it is deemed eligible by the appropriate access approval authority.  Id. at 79. USACE received over 70 proposals in response to the solicitation.  Agency Report (AR) Legal Memorandum at 3.  Before evaluating proposals, the contracting officer reviewed offerors’ information in the JCCS database.  On May 5, 2016, the contracting officer advised SGG that the firm was found to be non-responsible because it was ineligible for installation access in accordance with CENTCOM clause 5152.225-5916, and therefore was ineligible to be considered for award.  SGG was further advised that the contracting officer requested reconsideration of SGG’s base access ineligibility status from the appropriate access approval authority.[3]  AR, Tab 6, SGG Determination of Non-Responsibility Letter, May 5, 2016, at 1.  SGG protested to our Office. DISCUSSION SGG contends that USACE erroneously found the firm non-responsible.  SGG maintains that it properly registered in the JCCS database but was given no reason for being found non-responsible.  Protest at 3. The agency states that the decision to eliminate SGG from the competition was in accordance with the terms of the solicitation.  USACE explains that the contracting officer checked SGG’s registration in the JCCS database and found that the firm had been determined ineligible for base access, which mandated a non-responsibility determination.  AR Legal Memorandum at 3.  The agency states that a determination of installation access is a matter of inherent command authority and is not at the discretion of the contracting officer.  Id. at 6. In making a negative responsibility determination, a contracting officer is vested with a wide degree of discretion and, of necessity, must rely upon his or her business judgment in exercising that discretion.  Torres Int’l, LLC, B-404940, May 31, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 114 at 4.