BBGSRO Construction S.R.L. (B-423091; B-423091.2)

You should care.

Category: Technical evaluation, management approach, past performance, discussions

Date: 21 January 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423091%2Cb-423091.2

BBGSRO Construction SRL, a Romanian firm, protested the award of a contract to JV SKE Italy 2012 for the design and construction of an explosive and ammunition loading and unloading apron at the Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base in Romania. BBGSRO challenged the Army Corps of Engineers' evaluation of proposals, particularly concerning technical approach, management approach, and past performance. It also argued that discussions were unequal and that it was given less time to submit its revised proposal than competitors.

• Technical evaluation: BBGSRO’s technical approach received a marginal rating due to concerns over its proposed batch plant and site mobilization plan. GAO found the Corps’ evaluation reasonable, noting BBGSRO’s failure to clearly define its proposed alternative site access and batch plant location.
• Past performance: BBGSRO argued its projects were superior to SKE’s. GAO upheld Army’s determination that both firms had equivalent past performance.
• Discussions: BBGSRO was given seven days to submit a revised proposal, while others had ten. GAO dismissed this challenge as untimely, noting BBGSRO should have protested before submitting its final proposal.
• Accessing redacted documents: BBGSRO’s attorneys electronically manipulated an agency document to reveal redacted information, leading GAO to dismiss arguments based on this data for abuse of process.

GAO upheld the Corps’ evaluation and best-value tradeoff, concluding that the agency acted reasonably and consistently with the solicitation. The case underscores the importance of clearly written proposals and the risks of improperly handling protected information.

Digest

1. Supplemental protest allegations based on information derived from an improperly redacted document included in the agency report are dismissed for abuse of process, where the protester failed to alert the agency or GAO to the issue and instead electronically manipulated protected material.
2. Protest challenging agency’s failure to provide protester equal time for submitting a revised proposal is dismissed as untimely.
3. Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of protester’s non-price proposal is denied, as the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation.