TITLE:  Speegle Construction, Inc., B-286063, November 1, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-286063
DATE:  November 1, 2000
**********************************************************************
Speegle Construction, Inc., B-286063, November 1, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Speegle Construction, Inc.

File: B-286063

Date: November 1, 2000

G.R. Erick Mead, II, Esq., Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry, Bond &
Stackhouse, for the protester.

Wilson J. Campbell, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the
agency.

Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency decision to exclude proposal for renovation of barracks from the
competitive range was reasonable where offeror failed to include mechanical
systems in its floor plans, did not provide required narratives of specified
systems, but merely offered to provide systems in accordance with
solicitation requirements, and did not offer the required number of beds for
two barracks.

DECISION

Speegle Construction, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the
competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62467-99-R-0893,
issued by the Department of the Navy for the design and renovation of
barracks 313 to 318 at the Naval Construction Battalion in Gulfport,
Mississippi.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation provided for a best value award based on an evaluation of
past performance, small business subcontracting effort, technical
qualifications, technical solutions and price. Technical proposals were due
on June 5. Speegle submitted its technical proposal on June 2. Speegle also
submitted a modification to its technical proposal on June 16, but the
agency did not consider it because it was submitted after the June 5 closing
date. A technical evaluation board evaluated the technical proposals and
rated Speegle's unacceptable under the technical solutions factor because
Speegle's floor plans did not include space for mechanical systems, and the
proposal did not provide required narratives with respect to the plumbing,
HVAC, electrical, telecommunication and fire protection systems and did not
offer the required number of beds for barracks 316 and 318. Technical
Evaluation Report (TER) at 15. As a result, the Navy excluded Speegle's
proposal from the competitive range. Speegle protests this action, arguing
that the agency unreasonably found its proposal to be deficient.

The competitive range consists of the most highly rated proposals (except
where the range is reduced for purposes of efficiency), based on evaluation
of the information submitted in each proposal against the stated evaluation
criteria. United Housing Servs., Inc., B-281352.14, May 7, 1999, 99-1 CPD para.
80 at 3. An offeror runs the risk of having its proposal downgraded and
excluded from the competitive range if the proposal is inadequately written.
Id. In reviewing protests of competitive range determinations, we will not
reevaluate proposals; rather, we will review the record to ensure that the
evaluation and competitive range determination were reasonable and
consistent with the terms of the solicitation. SDS Petroleum Prods., Inc.,
B-280430, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 59 at 4.

The evaluation of Speegle's proposal was reasonable; the record supports the
agency's conclusion that the proposal was deficient in the three respects
noted above. We discuss each deficiency below.

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

The Navy concluded that Speegle's proposal was unacceptable under the
technical solutions factor because, among other reasons, the floor plans in
its proposal did not include space for mechanical systems. TER at 15.
Speegle maintains that the Navy's conclusion was incorrect because it
addressed mechanical systems in its proposal, and its floor plans do show
mechanical rooms for the various barracks. We initiated a conference call
with the Navy and Speegle on September 26, 2000 to determine the basis for
the Navy's finding, since our review of the record showed that the drawings
Speegle cited did in fact include mechanical rooms. The Navy explained that
the floor plans that Speegle referenced did not address the deficiency,
because they showed only mechanical rooms that already existed and did not
provide space for mechanical systems that had to be provided under the RFP.
For example, the Navy cited RFP sect. D 3000, paragraph 1.2, under which
offerors were required to include a water source heat pump for each module
in buildings 313, 315, 316 and 318; the Navy found that Speegle's floor
plans did not include space for these heat pumps. Speegle was given the
opportunity to respond to the agency's explanation, but did not do so.
Accordingly, based on the Navy's explanation, and our review of the record,
we conclude that the Navy reasonably determined that Speegle's proposal did
not provide space for the required mechanical systems.

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS NARRATIVE

The Navy also found Speegle's proposal deficient under technical solutions
because Speegle did not provide a narrative in its proposal with respect to
plumbing, HVAC, electrical, telecommunications and fire protection systems.
TER at 15. Under the technical solutions factor, Proposal Requirements at 7,
the RFP states:

Provide a narrative of the design solutions. Include a complete description
of the . . . plumbing systems, HVAC, electrical, telecommunications, fire
protection systems, etc. . . . Demonstrate that sound
architectural/engineering practices, materials and principles are employed .
. . . Narrative shall include a description of sustainable design features
to minimize energy consumption, conserve resources, and minimize adverse
effects on the environment.

Despite this specific instruction to provide a detailed description of the
listed systems, Speegle's proposal, as relevant, stated only that "[t]he
building will be provided with new plumbing, piping, water heater and
fixtures. All systems and equipment will meet program requirements," and
that "[c]omplete new lighting, power, fire alarm, data, telecom and cable TV
systems will be installed, in accordance with program requirements." Speegle
Proposal, Technical Solutions, at 11. This response was deemed unacceptable
because it did not provide sufficient information for the Navy to evaluate
whether Speegle understood the requirements of the solicitation and would
meet its needs. TER at 15.

Speegle does not dispute that its proposal did not provide details with
respect to the specified systems. Rather, Speegle asserts that the detailed
specifications in the RFP made the required information unnecessary; the
Navy could determine from Speegle's agreement to provide systems that
complied with the specifications that Speegle would meet the agency's needs.
In this regard, Speegle avers that it should be unnecessary for offerors to
restate detailed solicitation requirements in their proposals.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, protests based on alleged solicitation
deficiencies must be filed prior to the time set for receipt of proposals. 4
C.F.R.
sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2000). The RFP here specifically asked for detailed
descriptions of the listed systems. If Speegle believed that this
requirement was unnecessary, and that offerors should not be required to
comply with it given the detailed specifications for each system, Speegle
was required to protest on this basis prior to the June 5 closing date.
Because it did not do so, and chose instead to simply ignore the
requirement, this allegation is untimely.

In any case, the Navy does not agree that the only possible response to the
narrative was a recitation of the specifications. Rather, as the Navy
explained during the conference call that our Office conducted, it expected
offerors to discuss the various aspects of the systems. For example, it was
looking for offerors to elaborate on the two components--the alarm and the
sprinkler--of the fire protection system that would be installed, discussing
such things as the size of the water pump required, if any, available
pressure, and where fire detectors would be placed.

NUMBER OF BEDS

The Navy also found Speegle's proposal unacceptable because Speegle offered
to provide 256 beds for barracks 316 and 318, fewer than the 288 beds
required by the RFP. TER at 15. Speegle asserts that its offer of 256 beds
in its June 2 technical proposal was a mistake, and that its June 16 revised
proposal, which increased the number of beds to 288, should have been
accepted as a mistake correction.

This argument is without merit. Even if we accepted Speegle's assertion that
the reduced number of beds constituted a mistake, rather than a purposeful
exception to the requirements, Speegle merely submitted what appeared to be
a late proposal revision, never notifying the agency that it had made a
mistake. Thus, while the agency would have had discretion to hold
pre-competitive range communications with Speegle to clarify the alleged
mistake, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
sect. 15.306(b)(2) and (3), it had no reason to do so here.

On this record, we have no basis to question the Navy's conclusion that
Speegle's proposal was unacceptable, or the agency's determination not to
include the proposal in the competitive range.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

Acting General Counsel