TITLE:  Zafer Construction Company; Kolin Construction, Tourism, Industry and Trading Co. Inc., B-295903; B-295903.2, May 9, 2005
BNUMBER:  B-295903; B-295903.2
DATE:  May 9, 2005
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of: Zafer Construction Company; Kolin Construction, Tourism,
Industry and Trading Co. Inc.

   File: B-295903; B-295903.2

   Date: May 9, 2005

   Sheril D. Collins, Zafer Construction Company and Guenduez S. Guengen and
Naci Kologlu, Kolin Construction, Tourism, Industry and Trading Co. Inc.,
for the protesters.

   Stephen G. Anderson, Esq., Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz,
PC, for Framaco-Epik-Metis Joint Venture, an intervenor.

   Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency.

   Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1.  Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated protester's proposal is
denied where record shows that evaluation was reasonable and consistent
with stated evaluation criteria, and protester's contentions amount to
disagreement with the evaluation. 

   2.  Protest that award was improper because awardee was unable, after
award, to obtain site identified in its proposal for construction of man
camp, is denied where solicitation did not require firm commitment or
executed lease for sites identified in proposals.

   DECISION

   Zafer Construction Company and Kolin Construction, Tourism, Industry and
Trading Co. Inc. protest the award of a contract to Framaco-Epik-Metis
(FEM) Joint Venture under request for proposals (RFP) No.
SGE500-04-R-1122, issued by the Department of State, American Consulate
General, Frankfurt, Germany, for the design and construction of a "man
camp facility" for the United States Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan.  Both
protesters argue that the agency improperly evaluated their proposals and
that the award to FEM was improper.

   We deny the protests.

   The RFP, issued October 18, 2004, contemplated the award of a fixed-price
contract for the construction of a 500-person residential camp for the
U.S. Embassy security force, to include, among other things, housing
units, dining, laundry, bath and recreational facilities, office/training
and classroom facilities, walkways, an infirmary, and vehicle maintenance
and weapons storage facilities.  The RFP included a detailed statement of
work (SOW) outlining the contractor's responsibilities and including, for
example, a description of the required buildings, the utility and drainage
requirements, and required access roads. 

   Award was to be made on a "best value" basis considering price, present
and past performance, and technical/business management, which included
the following subfactors:  (1) project schedule, (2) technical
description, (3) management, (4)A safety, and (5) quality control plan. 
As relevant here, under the technical description subfactor, the
solicitation specifically stated that the agency would evaluate proposals
for site layout--considering whether facilities were located in a logical
manner and provided occupants easy access to each facility--and site
selection--considering, among other things, whether the proposed site was
within a reasonable distance of the Embassy, provided the guard contractor
easy control of the site, ensured the highest degree of physical security,
and provided multiple avenues of entrance.  The technical/business
management factor was more important than price and present/past
performance, which were of equal importance.  The RFP stated that the
agency intended to award a contract without discussions and that initial
proposals therefore should contain offerors' best technical and cost
terms.  The RFP further advised that a 10-percent price reduction would be
applied, for evaluation purposes, to offers submitted by American-owned
firms.

   RFP section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or
Respondents, identified a possible site--part of the Afghani Army
Camp--that "may be an available site for the man camp."  RFP, Amend. 4, at
3, 7.  The solicitation advised that the government would offer some
assistance in arranging a 5-year lease, with an option to extend, for this
site.  Id. at 7.  However, the RFP also specifically stated that this site
was provided "only as a potential solution for those offerors that are
unable to identify locations elsewhere.  This is not the Government
preferred site."  RFP, Amend. 5, at 2.  For any site identified, offerors
were to provide a narrative describing the extent of their investigations
regarding the site, including, for example, the point of contact
established, discussions between the landowner and the offeror concerning
the agreement to lease land and the details of the proposed lease
agreement for at least a 5-year term.  Additionally, offerors were to
provide details of their discussions or agreements concerning the yearly
cost of the lease; drawings indicating the proposed site layout design;
and documentation to describe the design/build services, security,
facilities, heating and cooling systems and utilities, and equipment.

   The agency received 14 proposals, including those of Zafer, Kolin, and
FEM, by the amended December 6 due date.  After evaluation, a technical
evaluation panel assigned the following adjectival ratings to the
proposals for the technical/business management factor:

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Offeror|Construction|Site  |Site              |Design/     |Management|Safety|Quality|
|       |            |Layout|Selection/Location|Construction|          |      |       |
|       |Schedule    |      |                  |            |          |      |Control|
|-------+------------+------+------------------+------------+----------+------+-------|
|Zafer  |Poor        |Fair  |Poor              |Fair        |Good      |Good  |Good   |
|-------+------------+------+------------------+------------+----------+------+-------|
|Kolin  |Good        |Good  |Poor              |Fair        |Fair      |Good  |Good   |
|-------+------------+------+------------------+------------+----------+------+-------|
|FEM    |Fair        |Good  |Good              |Good        |Good      |Good  |Good   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Agency Report (AR), Tab 17, Technical Evaluation Spreadsheet, at 2, 4.

   The contracting officer, serving as the source selection authority (SSA),
then reviewed the proposals, and assigned two overall ratings, one for the
site-related factors (layout and selection/location) and one for overall
technical/business management.  The contracting officer's ratings were as
follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Offeror               |Site Factors               |Overall              |
|----------------------+---------------------------+---------------------|
|Zafer                 |Poor                       |Poor                 |
|----------------------+---------------------------+---------------------|
|Kolin                 |Poor                       |Poor                 |
|----------------------+---------------------------+---------------------|
|FEM                   |Good                       |Good                 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, Tab 18, Award Documentation, at 6-8.    

   Neither Kolin, whose proposal was priced at $10,488,151, nor Zafer, whose
proposal was priced at $11,304,805, qualified for the 10-percent price
preference for American-owned firms.  AR, Tab 18, Award Documentation at
5.  FEM, an American-owned firm, offered a price of $14,886,000; after the
preference was applied, the agency calculated FEM's evaluated price as
$13,397,400.  Id.  In its source selection decision, the agency recognized
that, while the proposals were generally "acceptable with minor graduation
of difference" under the construction factors (construction schedule,
design/construction, management, safety and quality control plan), FEM's
proposal offered significant advantages under the site factors.  Id. at
8.  Specifically, the agency noted that, while Zafer's and Kolin's
proposals identified only the government-identified site, FEM's identified
alternate sites.[1]  The contracting officer determined that one of FEM's
alternative sites was superior because it was located in a fairly calm
area within a short drive to the Embassy, and offered numerous routes to
the Embassy.  Additionally, the site offered up to three entrances/exits
onto three different roads.  The SSA concluded that this site offered the
"best location to set up a safe and secure compound," and that "[n]o other
proposed site offered the same or similar advantages."  Id. at 8.  The SSA
requested that FEM clarify the extent of its investigations into the
availability of this site.  FEM responded that it had been unable to
"negotiate ownership and leasing issues," but felt that, if awarded the
contract, it would "be able to settle the leasing issues with the relevant
authoritiesA .A .A .A ."  AR, Tab 16, FEM Letter Clarifying Proposed Site
and Site Availability, at 1.  On the basis of these evaluation results,
the agency determined that it was reasonable to pay a premium "for the
conditions in Kabul," and made award to FEM.

   Upon being notified of the award, both protesters requested a debriefing. 
By letters dated February 2, the agency debriefed both protesters,
providing each with the technical evaluation panel's evaluation results
for their own and the awardee's proposals.  Both protesters also were
advised that their proposals were downgraded for failure to identify an
adequate site, which was a significant weakness.  By letter dated February
4, Kolin requested additional information.  The agency furnished a
response by letter dated March 1.  In this response, the agency also
advised Kolin that FEM was unable to obtain a lease on the site identified
in FEM's proposal and used in the evaluation.  Agency Report on Kolin
Protest, Tab 23, at 2.  On February 7, Zafer protested to our Office;
Kolin protested on March 4.   

   EVALUATION OF GOVERNMENT-IDENTIFIED SITE

   Zafer asserts that it understood that offerors were to propose on the
government-identified site as "the Bid Requirements," and complains that
its proposal thus improperly was downgraded for identifying this site. 
Zafer Comments at 5.  Kolin likewise complains that its proposal was
improperly downgraded for site selection, arguing that it was improper for
the agency to identify a site "as one that could be acceptable," and then
later rate Kolin's proposal poor for site selection based on its
identifying that site.  Kolin Protest at 2.   

   In reviewing protests challenging the evaluation of proposals, we will
examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was
reasonable and in accord with the stated evaluation criteria and
applicable procurement laws and regulations.  Information Sys. Tech.
Corp., B-291747, Mar. 17, 2003, 2003 CPD P 72 at 2.

   This aspect of the evaluation was unobjectionable.  Contrary to Zafer's
assertion, nothing in the solicitation required that offerors base their
proposals on the government-identified site; in fact, the solicitation
expressly allowed offerors to identify alternate sites.  As for Kolin's
suggestion that, having identified the site, the agency could not then
downgrade proposals based on that site, the RFP specifically stated that
the government-identified site was not the "preferred" site; this was
sufficient to put offerors on notice that the agency believed the site had
shortcomings; there was no reason for offerors to believe that these
shortcomings would not be factored into the evaluation.  In this regard,
in its award documentation the agency described the site as being within a
reasonable distance of the Embassy, but in a high-risk area and having
only a single access via the Jalalabad Road, which is also known as the
Bagram road, or "ambush alley" by U.S. troops.  AR, Tab 18, Award
Documentation, at 6.  Offerors were invited to visit the site, which would
have allowed them to identify the weaknesses inherent in the site.  We
conclude that the agency's evaluation of Zafer's and Kolin's proposals as
poor in this area was reasonable.[2] 

   EVALUATION OF KOLIN'S PROPOSAL

   Kolin complains that its design should have been rated as superior to
FEM's because it "conforms [to the] Technical Specifications, contained
more functional designs and provided 50.68% greater building area for the
camp" at a lower price.

   Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission
of protests.  Under these rules, a protest based on other than alleged
improprieties in a solicitation must be filed not later than 10 calendar
days after the protester knew, or should have known, of the basis for
protest, with an exception for protests that challenge a procurement
conducted on the basis of competitive proposals under which a debriefing
is requested and, when requested, is required.  4 C.F.R. SA 21.2(a)(2)
(2005).  In such cases, protests must be filed not later than 10 days
after the date on which the debriefing was held.  Id.

   As noted above, the agency provided Kolin a debriefing regarding the
evaluation of its proposal, including the evaluation of its site
design/layout, by letter dated (and apparently received) February 2. 
Therefore, to be timely, Kolin's protest regarding this area of the
evaluation had to be filed no later than February 14 (the first business
day after Saturday, February 12).  Kolin argues that its March 4 protest
was timely because the debriefing continued after its receipt of the
February 2 letter.  As explained above, Kolin raised additional questions
in a follow-up February 4 letter to the agency, to which the agency did
not respond until March 1.  This argument is without merit.  The agency
states--and there is nothing in the February 2 letter or elsewhere in the
record to the contrary--that it never indicated to Kolin that the February
2 debriefing letter was not final, or that the debriefing would be
considered concluded only after the agency responded to further questions
the protester might have after February 2.  Under these circumstances,
there is no basis for finding that the debriefing continued beyond
February 2.  The fact that Kolin may not have been satisfied with all
aspects of the debriefing, and that it continued to pursue questions with
the agency, did not extend the time for filing a protest with our Office
based on information provided in the debriefing.  See New SI, LLC,
B-295209 et al., Nov.A 22, 2004, 2005 CPD PA __.   We conclude that
Kolin's protest in this area was untimely, since it was not filed until
March 4, that is, more than 10 days after February 2.

   AWARD TO FEM

   Both protesters argue that the award is improper since FEM's proposal was
selected for award primarily on the basis of the site proposed, and the
record shows that FEM was unable to obtain a lease for that site after
award.  Zafer Comments at 6; Kolin Comments at 2. 

   This argument is without merit.  First, while section L called for
information regarding offerors' discussions and contacts with the owner of
the identified sites, nothing in the RFP required offerors to have a firm
commitment or an executed lease agreement for the sites identified in
their proposals, and nothing in the section M evaluation provisions
indicated that the probability of the offerors' obtaining the site would
be factored into the evaluation.  In this regard, instructions to offerors
in section L of an RFP are not the same as evaluation criteria established
in section M; rather than establishing minimum evaluation standards, the
instructions only provide guidance to assist offerors in preparing and
organizing their proposals.  Family Entm't Servs., Inc., d/b/a IMC,
B-291997.4, June 10, 2004, 2004 CPD P 128 at 5 n.2.  Thus, there was no
basis for the agency to deny FEM the award based on its lack of some
commitment for its identified site.[3]  (We note that it appears from the
record that no offeror, including Zafer and Kolin, provided a firm
commitment for the lease of a site with its proposal.) 

   Further, our Office will not review protests based on an awardee's alleged
failure to comply with contract terms after award, or on allegedly
improper contract modifications; these matters concern contract
administration, which is the responsibility of the contracting agency.  4
C.F.R. S 21.5(a).  Even if a contract modification arguably is
significant, in the absence of evidence that the contract was awarded with
the intent to modify it, we will not question the modification unless it
is shown to be beyond the scope of the original contract, so as to require
a separate procurement.  Tracor Flight Servs., Inc.-Recon., B-238200.2,
May 4, 1990, 90-1 CPD PA 450 at 3.  Here, there is no indication that the
agency awarded the contract to FEM with the intention of modifying
it--indeed, the record shows that both FEM and the agency believed that
FEM would be able to obtain a lease for the identified site--and there is
no argument, or reason to find, that this modification is beyond the scope
of the contract.

   The protests are denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The agency's evaluation notes that Zafer's proposal did not
specifically identify a proposed site and states that, although "it was
not exactly clear to the evaluation team" that Zafer was proposing the
government-identified site, no alternative sites were offered.  As a
result, the agency apparently evaluated the proposal on the basis of the
government-identified site.  AR, Tab 18, Award Documentation, at 7-8. 
Kolin proposed a possible alternate site that was available for purchase,
but provided no definitive information on this site, and the agency
apparently evaluated the proposal only on the basis of the
government-identified site.  Id. at 7.  The protesters do not object to
this aspect of the evaluation.

   [2] In its protest, Zafer also argued that the solicitation did not list
site layout and site selection as evaluation factors, and asserted that
"in normal evaluation circumstances the highest and the lowest [evaluated]
factors [for each proposal] are generally thrown out."  Zafer Protest at
7.   The agency responded to these arguments in its report, and Zafer did
not rebut the agency's position in its comments on the report. 
Accordingly, we consider these issues abandoned.  See Delco Indus. Textile
Corp., B-292324, Aug. 8, 2003, 2003 CPD P 141 at 3 n.2.

   [3] To the extent the protesters argue that the RFP should have required a
commitment of some sort for the proposed sites, the protest is untimely. 
Under our timeliness rules, a protest based on alleged improprieties in a
solicitation that are apparent prior to the time set for receipt of
initial proposals must be filed prior to that time.  4A C.F.R. S
21.2(a)(1).  Since Zafer's and Kolin's protests were filed after award,
any protest on this ground is untimely.