B-219447, AUG 5, 1985, 85-2 CPD 129
Highlights
CONTRACTS - NEGOTIATION - OFFERS OR PROPOSALS - EVALUATION - INSPECTION OF FACILITIES - NOT REQUIRED DIGEST: PROTEST THAT CONTRACTING OFFICER FAILED TO CONDUCT AN ON-SITE SURVEY AS PART OF PROPOSAL EVALUATION IS DISMISSED BECAUSE PROPOSALS ARE EVALUATED BASED ON INFORMATION SUBMITTED WITH THEM. THERE IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR AN ON-SITE INSPECTION OF AN OFFEROR'S FACILITIES. DESCOMP CONTENDS THAT THE AWARD IS IN ERROR BECAUSE THE NAVY. DID NOT CONDUCT AN ON-SITE SURVEY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE AWARDEE MET A SOLICITATION EVALUATION REQUIREMENT THAT THE PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR HAVE SUFFICIENT EQUIPMENT. THE PROTESTER SAYS AN ON-SITE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED 3-1/2 YEARS AGO WHEN IT WAS AWARDED A SIMILAR CONTRACT.
B-219447, AUG 5, 1985, 85-2 CPD 129
CONTRACTS - NEGOTIATION - OFFERS OR PROPOSALS - EVALUATION - INSPECTION OF FACILITIES - NOT REQUIRED DIGEST: PROTEST THAT CONTRACTING OFFICER FAILED TO CONDUCT AN ON-SITE SURVEY AS PART OF PROPOSAL EVALUATION IS DISMISSED BECAUSE PROPOSALS ARE EVALUATED BASED ON INFORMATION SUBMITTED WITH THEM, AND GENERALLY, THERE IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR AN ON-SITE INSPECTION OF AN OFFEROR'S FACILITIES.
DESCOMP, INC:
DESCOMP, INC. PROTESTS THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO M. HUGHES AUTOMATED SERVICES UNDER SOLICITATION NO. N0060085-R-0938 BY THE NAVAL REGIONAL CONTRACTING CENTER, WASHINGTON NAVY YARD. DESCOMP CONTENDS THAT THE AWARD IS IN ERROR BECAUSE THE NAVY, IN EVALUATING PROPOSALS, DID NOT CONDUCT AN ON-SITE SURVEY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE AWARDEE MET A SOLICITATION EVALUATION REQUIREMENT THAT THE PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR HAVE SUFFICIENT EQUIPMENT, FACILITIES AND PERSONNEL TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT. THE PROTESTER SAYS AN ON-SITE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED 3-1/2 YEARS AGO WHEN IT WAS AWARDED A SIMILAR CONTRACT, AND ASSERTS THAT THE NAVY COULD NOT HAVE PROPERLY EVALUATED HUGHES' ABILITY TO PERFORM WITHOUT AN ON-SITE INSPECTION OF HUGHES' FACILITIES.
THERE IS NO MERIT TO THIS PROTEST. PROPOSALS ARE EVALUATED BASED ON INFORMATION SUBMITTED WITH THEM. POTOMAC SCHEDULING CO., ET AL., B-213927, ET AL., AUG. 13, 1984, 84-2 CPD PARA. 162. THERE IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR AN ON-SITE INSPECTION OF AN OFFEROR'S FACILITIES. WE NOTE THAT DESCOMP NEITHER ALLEGES NOR OFFERS ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE NAVY'S ACTUAL EVALUATION OF HUGHES' PROPOSAL WAS IMPROPER; IT COMPLAINS ONLY THAT A SITE VISIT WAS NOT MADE.
SINCE A SITE VISIT WAS NOT REQUIRED, THERE IS NO VALID BASIS FOR PROTEST SET FORTH HERE. ACCORDINGLY, THE PROTEST IS DISMISSED.