SUNGLIM Engineering & Construction Company, Ltd. (W912UM20R0002)

B-419067.3 Aug 06, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sunglim Engineering & Construction Company, Ltd., of Busan, Korea, protests the award of a contract to Yibon Construction Co., Ltd,, of Seoul, Korea, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W912UM-20-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, to provide paving and related construction services at airfields in South Korea. Sunglim primarily asserts that the agency’s evaluation of its technical proposal was unreasonable and that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions. We sustain the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Sunglim Engineering & Construction Company, Ltd. File:  B-419067.3 Date:  August 6, 2021 Sang Chin An, for the protester. Matthew R. Keiser, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Significant weaknesses that should have been identified and disclosed during an agency’s initial evaluation, but were not, must be disclosed after they are identified by the agency’s subsequent evaluation.  As such, discussions, conducted by the agency as part of its corrective action following a prior protest, were not meaningful where the agency did not disclose an evaluated flaw the agency first identified in its reevaluation of the protester’s unchanged proposal. DECISION Sunglim Engineering & Construction Company, Ltd., of Busan, Korea, protests the award of a contract to Yibon Construction Co., Ltd,, of Seoul, Korea, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W912UM-20-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, to provide paving and related construction services at airfields in South Korea.  Sunglim primarily asserts that the agency’s evaluation of its technical proposal was unreasonable and that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions.  We sustain the protest.    BACKGROUND In March 2020, the agency issued the solicitation, seeking proposals for award of an indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity job order contract (JOC).[1]  The solicitation provided for award on the basis of a best-value tradeoff between the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  management plan to execute multiple projects and sample project;[2] past performance;[3] and price.[4]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 20.   On or before the April 17, 2020 closing date, proposals were submitted by 10 offerors, including Sunglim and Yibon.  In evaluating these proposals, the agency excluded several proposals from consideration, including Yibon’s, on the basis that they failed to comply with the solicitation requirements.  In evaluating Sunglim’s proposal under the most important factor, management plan, the agency identified multiple strengths and no weaknesses, and assigned it the highest rating, outstanding.  AR, Tab 6, First Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 2‑4.  In August 2020, the agency selected Sunglim’s proposal for award.  In determining that the proposal offered the best value to the government, the agency stated: Sunglim’s Factor 1 Management Plan proposal demonstrated its good understanding of . . . the specific tasks to be completed under JOC task orders. . . .  The level of detail in Sunglim’s Factor 1 Management Plan proposal pertaining to JOC task order work scheduling elements demonstrated good ability to successfully manage progress under a JOC task order and prepare and submit progress payments.  Id. at 4. Thereafter, Yibon filed a protest with our Office, challenging the agency’s exclusion of its proposal from the competition.[5]  In response to Yibon’s protest, the agency decided to take corrective action on the basis that the solicitation’s instructions “might be confusing.”  MOL at 5.  Specifically, the agency stated that it would suspend performance of the contract awarded to Sunglim, revise the terms of the solicitation, request revised proposals from all offerors, and make a new source selection decision.  Id.    On November 3, 2020, the agency issued a solicitation amendment that clarified the solicitation requirements, expanded the page limit on technical proposals, and requested revised submissions from all initial offerors.  With the amendment, the agency sent discussion questions to the various offerors, identifying evaluated weaknesses in their proposals.[6]  However, since the agency’s evaluation of Sunglim’s initial proposal did not disclose any weaknesses, the agency’s discussion letter to Sunglim did not identify any aspect of the proposal that it could “strengthen.”  On or before the November 16, 2020 closing date, revised proposals were submitted by eight offerors, including Yibon and Sunglim; Sunglim’s revised proposal was not materially changed from its initial proposal.  See Protest, attach.