Protest Against Contract Award

B-195957: Feb 25, 1980

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

A firm protested the award of a contract for the fabrication and installation of an exhibit for the Visitor Arrival Center at Grand Coulee Dam, Washington, by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). The protester alleged that it was misled by BOR, that under the applicable criteria its low proposal was technically acceptable and should have been selected for award, that the proposal should have been formally advertised instead of negotiated, and that the evaluators were not qualified to evaluate the proposals. The protester stated that it was led to believe that no award would be made in excess of $500,000. The record showed that a previous solicitation had indicated an estimated price of $500,000 for the future fabrication project; however, a 1-year delay, coupled with other problems, caused an upward revision in the estimate. There was no estimate in the instant solicitation, and an announcement of the procurement referred to an estimated cost of between $400,000 and $600,000. In this matter the protester apparently relied on oral advice and outdated information, and did so at its own risk. Proposal evaluation was conducted under a 100 point system in which the cost factor accounted for 40 points and three technical factors, taken collectively, accounted for 60 points. The protester argued that, under this system, cost was the most important factor in determing award. At the conclusion of negotiations, BOR found the protester's proposal to be technically inferior to at least three others. Since combined technical considerations did, in fact, outweigh cost in the evaluation system, award was properly made to a higher priced but technically superior firm. Although the protester claimed that the awardee's proposal was technically deficient, the claim was not substantiated and there was no basis to object to the award. Since the method of procurement was apparent on the face of the solicitation, any protest of that method should have been filed prior to bid opening or the date set for receipt of proposals. The entire protest was filed after evaluation and award and, consequently, that portion of the protest which referred to the method of procurement was untimely. The protester did not substantiate its allegation that the BOR personnel were not qualified to evaluate the proposals, and GAO will not question the qualifications of such officials simply on the basis of a protester's unsubstantiated allegations. Accordingly, the protest was denied.

Oct 26, 2020

Oct 23, 2020

Oct 22, 2020

Oct 20, 2020

Oct 16, 2020

Looking for more? Browse all our products here