Alltech Engineering Corporation

B-414002.2 Feb 06, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Alltech Engineering Corp., a small business located in Mendota Heights, Minnesota, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912BV-16-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District (Corps), to repair Tainter (i.e., radial flood) gates at Hulah Lake Dam in Copan, Oklahoma. The protester contends that the agency was required to seek clarification from Alltech before rejecting its proposal as technically unacceptable because of an allegedly minor clerical omission. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Alltech Engineering Corp. File:  B-414002.2 Date:  February 6, 2017 Richard G. Jensen, Esq., Fabyanske Westra Hart & Thomson, for the protester. Ronald J. Goodeyon, Esq., and Lauren M. Williams, Esq., Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency was required to seek clarification before rejecting the protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the agency was under no obligation to seek clarifications regarding the proposal’s material omission of a technical narrative required by the solicitation. DECISION Alltech Engineering Corp., a small business located in Mendota Heights, Minnesota, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912BV‑16‑R‑0004, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District (Corps), to repair Tainter (i.e., radial flood) gates at Hulah Lake Dam in Copan, Oklahoma.  The protester contends that the agency was required to seek clarification from Alltech before rejecting its proposal as technically unacceptable because of an allegedly minor clerical omission. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was set aside for small businesses, provided for the award of a fixed‑price construction contract on a lowest‑priced, technically acceptable basis, considering four evaluation factors:  specialized experience, proposed contract duration and summary schedule, past performance, and price.  RFP, amend. 1, at 7‑8, 10, 28.  The RFP stated that the Corps intended to make award without discussions, but that the agency reserved the right to conduct discussions if necessary.  Id. at 8, 16.  The solicitation instructed offerors to submit separate technical and price proposals, with detailed submissions for each evaluation factor.  Id. at 8‑15. With respect to the second evaluation factor (hereinafter, duration and schedule), offerors, in their technical proposals, were to:  (1) propose a contract duration not to exceed 383 days; (2) submit a summary level construction schedule, including construction phasing; and‑‑at issue here--(3) provide a narrative explanation of the proposed phasing plan, crew assembly and work schedule(s), and safety plan.  Id. at 11‑12, 32.  The RFP stated that the agency would evaluate the narrative to determine whether the offeror’s proposed phasing plan, work crew assembly and work schedule, and safety plan were realistic and logical.  See id. at 12.  Offerors were advised that the intent of these submissions was to provide enough detail to demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the project.  Id. The Corps received four timely proposals, including from Alltech and Blastco, Inc. (a small business located in Downey, California), which were evaluated as follows:   Specialized Experience Duration & Schedule Past Performance Overall Rating Price Alltech Acceptable Unacceptable Acceptable Unacceptable $4,585,000[1] Blastco Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable $4,815,000 AR, Tab 5, SSD, at 2‑3. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), which evaluated technical proposals, found Alltech’s proposal unacceptable under the duration and schedule evaluation factor, because it did not provide a narrative explanation, including a phasing plan, crew assembly and work schedule, or safety plan, as required by the RFP.  AR, Tab 4, SSEB Rep., at 2; see Protest, attach. 4, Altech Tech.