B-244636.2, October 30, 1991
Highlights
DIGEST: Protest is dismissed where. The RFP was issued on December 19. Initial proposals were due on May 15. Compadre received notice from DOE that it was not selected for award because it did not propose the lowest cost. It proposed the lowest evaluated cost and thus was entitled to negotiate a contract with DOE. DOE explains that the price proposals were evaluated by a computer program that was developed to evaluate the price proposals in accordance with the evaluation scheme in the RFP. Compadre's offer was in fact not low. The record further shows that Compadre's evaluated price was not low either under DOE's evaluation method or under Compadre's evaluation method. We dismiss the protest because it is simply based on an erroneous factual assumption.
B-244636.2, October 30, 1991
DIGEST: Protest is dismissed where, contrary to protester's factually erroneous belief, protester did not submit the lowest evaluated price for oil distribution services.
Attorneys
Compadre Pipeline Corporation:
Compadre Pipeline Corporation protests the award of contracts to Texaco Pipeline, Inc. and Unocal Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP96-91PO15551, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for crude oil distribution services.
We dismiss the protest.
The RFP was issued on December 19, 1990, for crude oil distribution services for a maximum of 700,000 barrels per day for a possible 20 year term. Initial proposals were due on May 15, 1991. The RFP provided for award to the technically acceptable offeror who proposed the lowest evaluated price. Section M of the solicitation provided details concerning how prices would be evaluated. On August 20, Compadre received notice from DOE that it was not selected for award because it did not propose the lowest cost.
On August 30, Compadre protested to our Office. Compadre alleged that, according to its calculations, it proposed the lowest evaluated cost and thus was entitled to negotiate a contract with DOE. Compadre also argued that DOE did not evaluate the offers in accordance with the RFP criteria because it did not consider distribution and movement services.
DOE submitted a report in response to the protest. In that report, DOE explains that the price proposals were evaluated by a computer program that was developed to evaluate the price proposals in accordance with the evaluation scheme in the RFP. DOE states that Compadre's calculations, upon which it bases its protest, do not correctly reflect escalation of certain costs required for evaluation. DOE states that, based on a proper evaluation, Compadre's offer was in fact not low.
The record shows that DOE did evaluate the offers in accordance with the solicitation criteria and considered distribution and movement services in the evaluation. The record further shows that Compadre's evaluated price was not low either under DOE's evaluation method or under Compadre's evaluation method. Accordingly, we dismiss the protest because it is simply based on an erroneous factual assumption, that is, that Compadre's evaluated offer was low.
Compadre also questions the evaluation methodology announced in the RFP and asserts that even if it did not submit the lowest price, its offer was "close enough" to the awardees' offers to require DOE to negotiate a contract with Compadre. The RFP, however, clearly stated the basis of evaluation and award (lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror). Accordingly, Compadre's protest concerning the evaluation methodology is untimely because it was not submitted prior to May 15, the closing time for the receipt of initial proposals. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(1) (1991), as amended by 56 Fed.Reg. 3759 (1991); Engelhard Corp., B-237824, Mar. 23, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 324.
The protest is dismissed.