Protest challenging the evaluation of the awardee’s proposal is denied. The agency argued that the protester was not an interested party because its price was unreasonably high and thus it was not eligible for award regardless of the outcome of the protest. GAO, however, found that under the circumstance, the protester was an interested party. Only two offerors had submitted proposals. Thus, if the protest was successful, there was no one in line and the agency would have to re-open the competition or resolicit. Because the protester could participate in a new competition or solicitation, it was an interested party. Despite having standing, however, GAO found that the protester’s challenge to the agency’s evaluation under the experience and schedule factors lacked merit.
The Army Corps of Engineers issued a solicitation seeking installation of a crane at a dam in Oregon. Two companies, REEL COH, Inc. and Knight Construction and Supply, Inc., submitted proposals. The Corps found REEL had a higher rated proposal under the non-price factors, but the company’s price was unreasonable. Accordingly, the Corps awarded the contract to Knight. REEL protested, challenging the Corps’ evaluation under the experience, past performance, schedule, and small business administration factor.
At the outset, the Corps argued that REEL was not an interested party because the SSA found its price unreasonably high. Due to its unreasonable price, REEL’s proposal was un-awardable, so, regardless of its protest, REEL did not have an economic interest in the procurement. REEL argued that despite noting that its price was unreasonably high, the Corps never expressly deemed its proposal un-awardable.
GAO noted that while the record did not include an express finding of ineligibility, it sufficiently established that REEL’s price was too high. An agency may reject a proposal solely on the basis of unreasonable price. It is not required to affirmatively state that the proposal is un-awardable.
Nevertheless, GAO did not believe that REEL’s ineligible proposal negated the company’s interested party status. As part of its protest, REEL had asserted that Knight’s proposal should have been found unacceptable under the past experience and schedule factors. If GAO sustained the protest on either ground there would be no intervening offeror in line for award. Under these circumstances, the Corps would have to re-open the competition or re-solicit. Because REEL could submit a revised proposal or participate in the re-solicitation, it had sufficient interest to maintain the protest.
But GAO also noted that while REEL challenged the evaluation of Knight under the past performance and small business participation factors, it did not argue that the evaluation should have rendered Knight’s proposal unacceptable under those factors. Accordingly, REEL did not have standing to challenge the evaluation as to those factors. GAO therefore dismissed REEL’s challenged to past performance and small business participation.
As to the challenge under the past experience factor, REEL argued that the Corps had erred in finding Knight’s experience acceptable because neither Knight nor its subcontractor had the required experience installing cranes. GAO disagreed, finding that Knight’s subcontractor had experience installing cranes. REEL contended that the subcontractor’s experience was not with the right type of crane. GAO, however, found that the type of crane the subcontractor installed qualified under the solicitation.
Still, REEL argued, notwithstanding the subcontractor’s experience, Knight itself lacked direct experience installing cranes, which should have resulted in an unacceptable rating under the experience factor. But the solicitation expressly permitted offerors to propose projects performed by a subcontractor. Because REEL’s argument was inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation, GAO rejected it.
REEL also contended that the evaluation under the schedule factor was flawed because Knight had failed to address two deficiencies in its proposal concerning it narrative description of the schedule and its use of a value engineering change proposal. (Value engineering, governed, by FAR part 48, allows contractors to suggest methods for performing contracts more efficiently.)
GAO, however, found that Knight had addressed the deficiencies in its proposal. It has revised the schedule narrative to conform to the solicitation and removed the references to value engineering.
REEL is represented by Franklin C. Turner, Alexander W. Major, Cara A. Wulf, and Ethan M. Brown of McCarter & English, LLP. The intervenor, Knight, is represented by
Richard D. Campbell  and Michael S. Bissell of Campbell & Bissell, PLLC. The agency is represented by Autumn V. Lovato and Thomas J. Warren of the Army. GAO attorneys Evan C. Williams and Stephanie B. Magnell participated in the preparation of the decision.
