B-238992, Mar 29, 1990
Highlights
After revised best and final offers were submitted but prior to award. Is dismissed. Where the protester was not competitively prejudiced by the agency's action. After the revised BAFOs were submitted. It is well-settled that a showing of prejudice is an essential part of a protest. It is incumbent upon a protester to show how it was prejudiced if corrective action is requested. Barfield also asserts that the competitive process used to select the successful proposal was. Since the protester gives no support or specific details for its bare allegation that auction techniques were used in connection with this procurement. We have no basis upon which to consider the matter. The protest is dismissed.
B-238992, Mar 29, 1990
DIGEST: Protest that contracting agency improperly disclosed proposed awardee's price to the protester-- after revised best and final offers were submitted but prior to award-- is dismissed, where the protester was not competitively prejudiced by the agency's action.
Attorneys
Barfield Associates, Inc.:
Barfield Associates, Inc., protests the proposed award of a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-09P-88-KTC-0176, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for construction quality management services in connection with GSA projects in California, Arizona, and Nevada.
We dismiss the protest.
Barfield reports that GSA revised the solicitation after receiving initial best and final offers (BAFO) and, consequently, requested revised BAFOs. After the revised BAFOs were submitted, Barfield, the low offeror under the initial BAFOs, contacted GSA to learn the status of the award and the firm's ranking among the other offerors. GSA advised Barfield that the award would be made to another offeror and disclosed the proposed awardee's price. This protest to our Office followed.
Barfield contends that any award under the solicitation would be improper because GSA's pre-award disclosure of the proposed awardee's price breached the integrity of the competitive procurement process.
It is well-settled that a showing of prejudice is an essential part of a protest, and it is incumbent upon a protester to show how it was prejudiced if corrective action is requested. Louisiana Found. for Medical Care-- Reconsideration, B-225576.2, July 2, 1987, 87-2 CPD Para. 6. The protester has made no such showing here.
Generally, the submission of BAFOs marks the completion of the negotiation process. Here, the negotiation process had ended and GSA had decided to make an award to a firm other than Barfield under the revised BAFOs, before the agency disclosed the proposed awardee's price to the protester. The protester has not shown and we fail to see how the agency's price disclosure prejudiced the protester or, for that matter, invalidated the competitive process.
Barfield also asserts that the competitive process used to select the successful proposal was, in effect, an auction. Our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.1(b)(4) (1989), explicitly require a detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds of protest. See Esilux Corp., B-234689, June 8, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 538. Since the protester gives no support or specific details for its bare allegation that auction techniques were used in connection with this procurement, we have no basis upon which to consider the matter.
The protest is dismissed.