TITLE:  National Shower Express, Inc.; Rickaby Fire Support, B-293970; B-293970.2, July 15, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-293970; B-293970.2
DATE:  July 15, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   A 

   A 

   Matter of: National Shower Express, Inc.; Rickaby Fire Support

   A 

   File:B-293970; B-293970.2

   A 

   Date:July 15, 2004

   A 

   R. Wade Curtis, Esq., Belnap & Curtis, for National Shower Express, Inc.,
and Stan Rickaby for Rickaby Fire Support, the protesters.

   Donna Wysocki for Bishop Companies, Inc., an intervenor.

   Daniel N. Hylton, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.

   Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   A 

   1.  Agency reasonably eliminated proposal from consideration for award
where the proposal contained general statements of compliance with the
technical requirements, but failed to clearly demonstrate how its proposed
equipment would comply with the requirements.

   A 

   2.  Agency may properly reopen discussions in order to correct a
procurement defecta**a**improper post-closing discussions only with the
awardeea**a**even though an award had been made and the award price
announced to all offerors.

   DECISION

   A 

   National Shower Express, Inc. protests an award to Bishop Companies, Inc.,
and Rickaby Fire Support protests the reopening of discussions, under
request for proposals (RFP) No. 49-03-06, issued by the Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, National Interagency Fire Center, for mobile
shower facilities at various locations.

   A 

   We deny the protests.

   A 

   BACKGROUND

   A 

   The RFP provided for award of multiple fixed-price requirements contracts,
for a base year with 4 option years, for mobile shower facilities to be
located near 30A cities in 12 western states, including Alaska, which were
identified as *designated dispatch points.*  The RFP required that the
proposed shower facilities, including equipment and personnel, be located
within 20 miles of the dispatch point and ready for deployment throughout
a specified availability period.  One award would be made for each
dispatch point.  Offerors could propose shower facilities to be considered
for award at any number of dispatch points.

   A 

   Award was to be made on a *best value* basis to the offeror whose proposal
met the minimum requirements of the solicitation and was most advantageous
to the government considering price and the following technical evaluation
factors (in descending order of importance):  (1)A proposed equipment,
(2)A past performance, (3)A experience, and (4) technical approach.  These
technical factors, when combined, were approximately equal to price.

   A 

   Of relevance to this protest was the most important technical factor,
proposed equipment.  In this regard, the RFP provided as follows:

   A 

   The Government will evaluate the proposed shower unit of each acceptable
offer to determine to what extent the unit will meet or exceed the stated
performance requirements.  Minimum requirements will be evaluated on a
pass/fail basis.  In addition, shower equipment will be evaluated based on
condition, durability, privacy, design, capacity and flexibility of gender
usage.

   RFP SA M.3.A.1.  Further, in the RFP*s instructions for preparation of the
technical proposal, offerors were specifically cautioned as follows:

   A 

   The technical proposal will be used to make an evaluation and arrive at a
determination as to whether the proposal will meet the requirements of the
Government.  Therefore, the technical proposal must present sufficient
information to reflect a thorough understanding of the requirements and a
detailed description of the techniques, procedures and program for
achieving the objectives of the specifications/statement of work. 
Proposals which merely paraphrase the requirements of the Government*s
specifications/statement of work, or use phrases as *will comply* or
*standard techniques will be employed* will be considered unacceptable and
will not be considered further.

   RFP SA L.5(b).

   A 

   Price proposals were to be evaluated for reasonableness and for
demonstrated understanding of the level of effort needed to successfully
perform these services.  RFP SA M.3.B.  In this regard, the RFP required
each offeror to complete not only the solicitation schedule of prices, but
also to submit a detailed breakdown of individual cost elements, including
overhead and profit.  RFP SSA M.3.B, L.5(c)((1)(b).

   A 

   The Forest Service received initial proposals from 42 offerors for 64
mobile shower facilities by the closing time.  The agency conducted
discussions with the 38 offerors whose proposals were determined to be in
the competitive range, including National Shower, Bishop and Rickaby.  The
discussion letters reminded offerors that the stated *minimum requirements
will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis,* and included an equipment
evaluation checklist which the letters indicated would be *used to
determine to what extent the units will meet or exceed the stated
performance requirements.*  Contracting Officer*s Statement at 4; see
Discussion Letters to National Shower, Bishop and Rickaby.  The letters
requested offerors to complete and return the checklist as follows:

   A 

   Use this form to identify which page of your proposal addresses each
requirement [for each unit].  Submit the form with your final proposal
revision.

   In addition, the discussion letters also addressed specific weaknesses or
deficiencies identified by the agency*s evaluation of proposals. 

   A 

   The agency received revised proposals from 37 offerors.  However, after
receipt of proposal revisions, the contracting officer realized that, due
to a misunderstanding of Rickaby*s proposal, the agency had incorrectly
advised Rickaby that its pricing was low.  Since Rickaby had responded by
significantly increasing its price in its revised proposal, the
contracting officer subsequently afforded Rickaby, after the closing time
for receipt of revised proposals, the opportunity to revise its price.

   A 

   The Forest Service evaluated Bishop*s and Rickaby*s revised proposals as
acceptable or higher under every technical factor.  In contrast, National
Shower*s proposal was determined to be only marginal under two of the
factors (proposed equipment and experience) and acceptable under the
remaining two factors (past performance and technical approach).  Under
the proposed equipment factor, the agency*s technical evaluation board
(TEB) determined that National Shower*s proposal did not provide
sufficient information to show compliance with stated minimum requirements
for safety shields completely enclosing light fixtures, and for built-in
or permanently attached  stoppers for the sink drains.  In addition, the
TEB determined that the certification that National Shower had submitted
to meet the requirement that potable water vehicles have a seal, sticker
or certificate indicating that the state or local authority had inspected
and found the vehicles in compliance with potable water standards, was not
for the vehicle proposed.

   A 

   Based upon its evaluation of revised proposals, the Forest Service made a
*best value* determination for each designated dispatch point.  In making
that determination for any given dispatch point, if an otherwise
acceptable proposal was selected for award at another dispatch point, the
agency eliminated that proposal from consideration for award at the
dispatch point being evaluated (unless that offeror proposed multiple
facilities and one of its facilities was not yet selected for award
elsewhere).  The agency was able to make best-value determinations in this
manner for all but seven dispatch points, for which there were no
acceptable proposals available for award.  At those seven dispatch points,
the agency conducted a second round of discussions telephonically with all
remaining offerors who had submitted proposals for those locations, and
then requested revised proposals for the seven locations.

   A 

   The Forest Service ultimately awarded contracts for all 30 dispatch
points, with award being made to Bishop for Salt Lake City, Utah, and to
Rickaby for Idaho Falls, Idaho.  Although National Shower had submitted a
lower-priced proposal for both locations, its proposal was found to be
ineligible for award on the basis that it was noncompliant with the stated
minimum technical requirements, and also did not include the required
detailed cost breakdown.

   A 

   Following a debriefing, National Shower filed an agency-level protest
challenging the awards to Bishop and Rickaby.  When its agency-level
protest was denied, National Shower filed a protest with our Office
challenging both awards.

   A 

   Subsequently, however, the Forest Service notified our Office that,
because the  agency had reopened discussions with Rickaby after the
closing time for receipt of revised proposals, the agency intended to
reopen discussions with offerors in the competitive range for Idaho Falls,
including National Shower, request revised proposals, and make a new
source selection decision for that location.  As a result, National Shower
withdrew the portion of its protest that challenged the award to Rickaby,
while Rickaby filed this protest with our Office against the reopening.

   A 

   NATIONAL SHOWER PROTEST

   A 

   National Shower asserts that the agency unreasonably determined that its
proposal failed to meet the RFP*s minimum equipment requirements and
improperly eliminated its proposal on that basis.  In addition, National
Shower challenges the agency*s evaluation under the experience factor.[1]

   A 

   Where a protester challenges an agency*s evaluation resulting in the
rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable, our review is
limited to considering whether the evaluation is reasonable and consistent
with the terms of the RFP and applicable procurement statutes and
regulations.  Outdoor Venture Corp., B-288894.2, Dec. 19, 2001, 2002 CPD
PA 13 at 2-3.  Clearly stated RFP technical requirements are considered
material to the needs of the government, and a proposal that fails to
conform to such material terms is technically unacceptable and may not
form the basis for award.  Id.; Team One USA, Inc., B-272382, Oct. 2,
1996, 96-2 CPD PA 129 at 8.

   A 

   Here, the RFP set forth in the specifications/statement of work *the
minimum equipment requirements for a Mobile Shower Facility,* RFP SA C.3,
and indicated that the *[m]inimum requirements will be evaluated on a
pass/fail basis.*  RFP SA M.3.A.1.  Further, during discussions, the
agency*s letter to National Shower cautioned that its proposal *failed to
address several minimum equipment requirements*; reminded National Shower
that the stated *minimum requirements will be evaluated on a pass/fail
basis*; furnished an equipment evaluation checklist which restated the
minimum requirements and which the letter indicated would be *used to
determine to what extent the units will meet or exceed the stated
performance requirements*; and specifically instructed National Shower to
complete the checklist, *identify[ing] which page of your proposal
addresses each requirement for each unit,* and return it with the
offeror*s revised proposal. 

   A 

   Based upon our review of the record, we find that the Forest Service
reasonably determined that National Shower*s proposal was technically
unacceptable for failing to demonstrate compliance with several of the
stated minimum, *pass/fail* specification requirements.  For example, the
RFP established a minimum requirement for enclosed light bulbs, as
follows:

   A 

   C.3.1.16.  Light bulbs, tubes, etc. shall be covered with a completely
enclosed plastic safety shield, tempered safety glass, or its equivalent
for all light fixtures.  Light fixtures shall be installed so as not to
constitute a hazard to personnel or shower unit materials.

   RFP SA C.3.  National Shower*s entry on the checklist for this requirement
identified photographs *e* and *f* submitted with its proposal revisions. 
National Shower Proposal Revisions at 11.  These two photographs (which
are not close-up pictures) show examples of light fixtures inside a shower
trailer and outside of a trailer above sinks.  Id. at 27.  We agree with
the agency that neither of these photographs demonstrates that these light
fixtures are completely enclosed with plastic safety shields, tempered
safety glass, or its equivalent.  Moreover, the captions under these
photos do not mention such enclosures for the light fixtures.  Although
National Shower has now identified additional photographs in its proposal
to show compliance, National Shower did not, as expressly required by the
RFP, identify the additional photographs for this purpose during the
competition.  In any case, the additional photograph similarly fail to
demonstrate compliance with the requirement that these light fixtures be
completely enclosed with plastic safety shields, tempered safety glass, or
its equivalent.  The record thus supports the agency*s determination that
the proposal did not demonstrate compliance with the minimum requirement
stated at RFP SA C.3.1.16.

   A 

   The RFP also established a minimum requirement for built-in or permanently
attached sink stoppers, as follows:

   A 

   C.3.2.1. . . .  Each wash basin (sink) shall also have the ability to hold
water with built in or permanently attached stoppers.

   RFP SA C.3.  National Shower*s entry on the checklist for this requirement
identified paragraph *B.2.v* in its initial technical proposal, and
photographs *s, v and w* submitted with its proposal revisions.  National
Shower Proposal Revisions at 12.  We agree with the agency that neither
the referenced paragraph in the initial technical proposal nor the
photographs (which are not close-up pictures) in the revised proposal
clearly show or address any method of holding water in the sinks.  Id.
atA 34, 36; National Shower Initial Technical Proposal, SA B.2.v. 
Although National Shower has now identified additional photographs in its
proposal, National Shower did not, as expressly required by the RFP,
identify the additional photographs for this purpose during the
competition.  In any case, the additional photographs similarly fail to
demonstrate compliance with the requirement for built-in or permanently
attached sink stoppers.  The record thus supports the agency*s
determination that the proposal did not demonstrate compliance with the
minimum requirement stated at RFP SA C.3.2.1.

   A 

   National Shower asserts that because its proposal generally stated that
its equipment complied with all the requirements, and it submitted the
checklist with all of the requirements marked *pass,* its proposal
demonstrated compliance with all of the requirements.[2]  We disagree.  It
is the offeror*s responsibility to include sufficiently detailed
information in its proposal to establish that the item offered will meet
material solicitation requirements, and blanket statements of compliance
are insufficient to fulfill this obligation.  Outdoor Venture Corp.,
supra, at 3.  Furthermore, National Shower*s general statements of
compliance were insufficient to comply with the solicitation's requirement
for specific information which the agency deemed necessary for evaluating
the technical acceptability of proposals.  See Johnson Controls, Inc.,
Ba**282326, June 28, 1999, 99-2 CPD PA 6 at 5-6; Benton Corp., B-249091,
Oct. 21, 1992, 92-2 CPD PA 264 at 4.

   A 

   In its protest, National Shower notes that the agency did not specifically
call attention in the discussion letter to National Shower*s failure to
demonstrate compliance with the stated minimum, *pass/fail* specification
requirements for enclosed light fixtures and built-in or permanently
attached stoppers for the sinks.  However, to the extent the protester is
claiming that it was thus deprived of an opportunity to demonstrate
compliance with these minimum requirements, the record clearly shows
otherwise.  As stated, the agency instructed National Shower that its
initial proposal did not demonstrate compliance with several of the
minimum technical requirements; provided a checklist specifically stating
what a proposal had to demonstrate to show compliance; and instructed the
offeror to identify the page number of the proposal which showed
compliance with each of the requirements on the checklist.  This checklist
included, and requested a response to, separate items for (1) RFP S
3.1.16, restating the specification to require that *[a]ll light fixtures,
light bulbs, tubes, etc. [be] covered with a completely enclosed plastic
safety shield, tempered safety glass, or equivalent,* and (2) RFP S
C.3.2.1, setting forth solicitation requirements for the wash basins,
including the requirement that *[e]ach wash basin (sink) shall also have
the ability to hold water with built in or permanently attached
stoppers.*  National Shower completed and returned the checklist,
specifically identifying a page from its initial proposal and additional
photographs furnished with its revised proposal which it represented
showed compliance with the requirements for enclosed light fixtures and
built-in or permanently attached stoppers.  Thus, the record indicates
that National Shower was on notice of the need to address these
specification requirements in its revised proposal and, in fact,
specifically responded, including by furnishing additional material
regarding its shower units.[3]

   A 

   In sum, we find that the Forest Service reasonably determined that
National Shower*s proposal did not demonstrate compliance with the
minimum, *pass/fail* technical requirements.  In these circumstances, we
conclude that the agency properly eliminated National Shower*s technically
unacceptable proposal from consideration for award.  Given our conclusion
in this regard, we need not address National Shower*s other challenges to
the evaluation.

   A 

   RICKABY PROTEST

   A 

   Rickaby alleges that the agency*s decision to reopen discussions for the
Idaho Falls dispatch point is improper because the agency, in permitting
Rickaby to revise its price after the receipt of revised proposals, was
merely trying to correct a calculation error made by the agency during the
evaluation.

   A 

   As noted above, after receipt of proposal revisions, the contracting
officer realized that, due to a misunderstanding of Rickaby*s proposal,
the agency had incorrectly advised Rickaby that its pricing was low. 
Specifically, in calculating a daily rate per showerhead, the agency price
evaluator interpreted the fact that Rickaby had completed the
solicitation*s price schedule by entering *16* for the number of
showerheads for males and *4* for the number of showerheads for females to
mean that Rickaby was proposing a total 20 showerheads per mobile shower
unit.  In fact, it appears that Rickaby proposed only 16 shower heads per
mobile shower unit, with 4 being private showerheads that could be used
for women.  Since Rickaby had responded to the contracting officer*s
expression of concern regarding its price by significantly increasing its
price in its revised proposal, the contracting officer, after the closing
time for receipt of revised proposals, advised Rickaby that its initial
overall price was neither low nor high, and afforded Rickaby the
opportunity to revise its price proposal based on this information. 
Rickaby then reduced its final proposed price to an amount close to the
price in its initial proposal. Contracting Officer*s Statement (Rickaby)
at 4-6; Best Value Analysis Report at 9.

   A 

   The agency reports that, while reviewing the contract file in response to
National Shower*s protest, the agency realized that the contracting
officer*s conversation with Rickaby following receipt of final proposal
revisions, and her providing Rickaby with another opportunity to revise
its price proposal constituted an improper reopening of discussions with
only one offeror in the competitive range.  The agency determined that
additional discussions with all offerors for the Idaho Falls location
whose proposed facilities remain available, and an opportunity to submit
second revised proposals, were appropriate to ensure that all offerors who
had proposed performing these services were treated equally and fairly. 
Agency Report (Rickaby) at 5-6.

   A 

   Contracting agencies have broad discretion to take corrective action where
they determine that such action is necessary to ensure fair and impartial
competition.  RS Info. Sys., Inc., B-287185.2, B-287185.3, May 16, 2001,
2001 CPD P 98 at 4.  We generally will not object to corrective action
that places all offerors in the same competitive posture they enjoyed
prior to the defect in the source selection process.  Henkels & McCoy,
Inc., B-250875 et al., Feb. 24, 1993, 93-1 CPD PA 174 at 3.

   A 

   Discussions occur when an offeror is given the opportunity to revise or
modify its proposal, or when information requested from and provided by an
offeror is essential for determining the acceptability of its proposal. 
If a procuring agency holds discussions with one offeror, it must hold
discussions with all offerors whose proposals are in the competitive
range.  Federal Acquisition Regulation SA 15.306(d); International Res.
Group, B-286663, Jan. 31, 2001, 2001 CPD PA 35 at 6.  Similarly, if
discussions are reopened with one offeror after receipt of final revised
proposals, they must be reopened with all offerors whose proposals are in
the competitive range.  Rockwell Elec. Commerce Corp., B-286201.6, Aug.
30, 2001, 2001 CPD PA 162 at 4.

   A 

   Here, after receipt of final revised proposals, the Forest Service
afforded Rickaby the opportunity to revise its price, and Rickaby in fact
significantly lowered its price.  While the agency*s action may have
resulted from an attempt to remedy the effects of misleading agency advice
during discussions, nevertheless, in giving Rickaby an additional
opportunity to revise its price, the Forest Service reopened discussions
with Rickaby, and only with Rickaby.  Since the agency reopened
discussions with one offeror in the competitive range, the agency should
have reopened discussions with all offerors in the competitive range at
that time.  Rockwell Elec. Commerce Corp., supra.  In these circumstances,
we find unobjectionable the agency*s subsequent determination to do what
it should have previously done, that is, reopen discussions with all
offerors.  The fact that the agency took corrective action after
announcing an award to Rickaby and disclosing Rickaby*s contract price
does not render the corrective action improper.  Where the corrective
action taken by an agency is otherwise unobjectionable, a request for
revised price proposals is not improper merely because the awardee*s price
has been exposed.  Strand Hunt Constr., Inc., Ba**292415, Sept. 9, 2003,
2003 CPD P 167 at 6.

   A 

   The protests are denied.

   A 

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

   A 

   ------------------------

   [1] In its comments, National Shower asserts that the agency improperly
failed to consider its proposal for award at the seven dispatch points for
which no revised proposals were acceptable.  However, National Shower did
not submit a proposal for any of these locations, and it has not stated a
basis upon which its proposal could have been considered for award at
those dispatch points.  Contracting Officer*s Statement (Rickaby) at 5;
Best Value Analysis Report, Revised Proposals. 

   [2] National Shower also alleges that the agency should have considered
its compliance with minimum requirements under past contracts.  Each
federal procurement, however, stands alone; the agency*s acceptance of a
proposal as acceptable under a prior procurement does not require the
agency to find the proposal acceptable under the present procurement. 
Career Quest, Inc., BA 292865, B-292865.2, Dec. 10, 2003, 2004 CPD PA 4 at
5-6.

   [3] National Shower, who did not have counsel admitted to the protective
order (and thus did not have access to the awardee*s proposal or other
protected information), speculates that the awardee*s proposal similarly
failed to comply with the RFP requirements.  However, our review of the
awardee*s proposal and the record of evaluations and discussions furnishes
no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency*s determination that
Bishop*s proposal adequately and specifically demonstrated compliance with
the minimum requirements.