Engineering Design Technologies, Inc.

B-413281 Sep 21, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Engineering Design Technologies, Inc. (EDT), of Marietta, Georgia, protests the award of a task order to Whitesell-Green, Inc., of Pensacola, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9126G-13-X-1401, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps) for the Trainee Barracks Upgrade Program at Ft. Benning, Georgia. The protester asserts that the agency conducted improper discussions and applied an unstated factor in its evaluation. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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:  Engineering Design Technologies, Inc. File:  B-413281 Date:  September 21, 2016 Reginald M. Jones, Esq., and Nicholas T. Solosky, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for the protester. Connie L. Baran, Esq., Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Frank Maguire, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency did not engage in misleading discussions where it gave the protester a choice in how to respond to identified weaknesses, and the protester exercised its business judgment in electing to respond to many of the weaknesses with a simple statement of compliance as opposed to a narrative providing detail. DECISION Engineering Design Technologies, Inc. (EDT), of Marietta, Georgia, protests the award of a task order to Whitesell-Green, Inc., of Pensacola, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9126G-13-X-1401, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps) for the Trainee Barracks Upgrade Program at Ft. Benning, Georgia.  The protester asserts that the agency conducted improper discussions and applied an unstated factor in its evaluation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on May 15, 2015, “to all Offerors in the MATOC [multiple-award task order] pool.”[1]  RFP at 1.  The solicitation provided for award on a best-value basis.  Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of price and non-price factors including design technical (with subfactors building function and aesthetics and quality of building services), proposed contract duration and summary schedule, and past performance.  RFP at 7.  Design technical was more important than proposed contract duration and summary schedule, which was in turn more important than past performance.  The non-price factors combined were equal in importance to price.  Id. at 7-8. EDT, Whitesell-Greene, and a third offeror submitted proposals on July 26, 2015. [2]  After receipt of proposals, several post-closing RFP revisions were issued.  The agency received revised proposals from EDT and Whitesell-Green by April 19, 2016.  On September 2, 2015, after evaluation of proposals, the contracting officer (CO) sent a discussion letter to EDT, identifying 15 total weaknesses.  The letter instructed EDT to “address each weakness item directly,” with at least one of the following responses: Concurrence that the comment is valid, and that your firm will comply with the comment if your firm is awarded the task order. Non-concurrence that the comment is valid, with explanation of why the presentation in your proposal is correct. Narrative response clarifying your intent to comply with the comment. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3a, Discussion Letter at 1.[3] EDT responded to the discussion letter on September 9, 2015.  With regard to 12 of the identified weaknesses, EDT responded with the statement, “We concur that the comment is valid and our firm will comply with the comment and requirements of the RFP if awarded the task order.”  AR, Tab 3b, Discussions Response at 1-2.  With regard to the remaining three identified weaknesses, EDT responded with the above statement of concurrence, but added specific information about how it would comply with the requirement, e.g., “The existing roof will be demolished down to the structure.”  Id. at 1. After RFP revisions, EDT and Whitesell-Green submitted revised price proposals.  CO Statement (COS) at 2.  Final ratings and proposed prices were as follows:   EDT Whitesell-Green Design Technical--Overall Acceptable Outstanding ■  Building Function and Aesthetics Acceptable Good ■  Quality of Building  Systems Good Outstanding Proposed Contract Duration and Summary Schedule Good Outstanding Past Performance Unknown Unknown Price $32,070,000 $32,498,000 AR, Tab 7a, Price Negotiation Memorandum-Addendum, May 12, 2016, at 2, 4.  With regard to the trade-off analysis, the CO determined that Whitesell-Greene offered the best value and was “worth the additional cost.”  Id.