Geotech Environmental Services, Inc.
Case: B-415035
Agency: Department of Defense : Department of the Air Force
Protester: Geotech Environmental Services, Inc.
Date: 2017-11-08
Denied
B-415035
Nov 08, 2017
Jump To
VIEW DECISION
DOWNLOADS
RELATED PAGES
GAO CONTACTS
Highlights
Geotech Environmental Services, Inc., a small business located in Addison, Illinois, protests the rejection of its proposal and the award of a contract to Wadsworth Builders Company, Inc., of Great Falls, Montana, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4626-16-R-0032, issued by the Department of the Air Force to construct water wells at Malmstrom Air Force Base (AFB), Montana. Geotech challenges the evaluation of its technical proposal and contends that the Air Force's exchanges with Geotech were flawed.
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: Geotech Environmental Services, Inc.
File: B-415035
Date: November 8, 2017
Nancy M. Camardo, Esq., and Justin T. Huffman, Esq., Camardo Law Firm, PC, for the protester.
Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., and Christopher S. Cole, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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 further clarification before rejecting the protester's proposal as unacceptable is denied where the agency identified a material omission from the protester's technical proposal during discussions but the protester's final revised proposal did not address the omission.
DECISION
Geotech Environmental Services, Inc., a small business located in Addison, Illinois, protests the rejection of its proposal and the award of a contract to Wadsworth Builders Company, Inc., of Great Falls, Montana, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4626-16-R-0032, issued by the Department of the Air Force to construct water wells at Malmstrom Air Force Base (AFB), Montana. Geotech challenges the evaluation of its technical proposal and contends that the Air Force's exchanges with Geotech were flawed.
We deny the protest.
BACKGROUND
The RFP was set aside for small businesses and provided for award of a fixed-price contract on a lowest-price, technically-acceptable basis, considering technical, price, and past performance evaluation factors. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 17, 35, 45-46. The procurement was conducted using Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15 procedures and offerors were advised that the Air Force would hold discussions if determined to be in the best interest of the government. Id. at 39, 45. In their technical proposals, offerors were to document their capability to perform the requirement by addressing three evaluation subfactors: well drilling and casing, waterline installation, and well stratigraphy. See id. at 42, 47.
Of significance here, the RFP stated that to be evaluated acceptable under the well stratigraphy subfactor (subfactor III), offerors were to provide evidence of prior performance of at least two domestic water well projects where a licensed geologist logged the well stratigraphy during the well drilling operation. Id. at 47. The RFP also stated that a proposal evaluated as unacceptable under any technical subfactor would be found technically unacceptable overall and, therefore, ineligible for award. See id. at 46.
The Air Force received proposals from six offerors, including Geotech and Wadsworth, which were evaluated by a source selection evaluation board (SSEB). Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 5. Geotech submitted the lowest-priced proposal; Wadsworth submitted the second lowest-priced proposal. AR, Tab 7, SSEB Rep., at 5-6. As relevant here, Geotech's technical proposal identified two projects under the well stratigraphy subfactor. See AR, Tab 10, Geotech Proposal, at 24-25. The proposal described the first project (known as the Last Chance Basin well) as follows: "[d]rilled seven 16" diameter domestic water wells to approximately 130 feet deep. All were drilled with onsite geologist." Id.
Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...