Project Resources, Inc.
Highlights
Project Resources, Inc. (PRI) protests the failure of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate its proposal for environmental remediation services under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91238-05-R-0022. PRI contends that the agency lost its proposal and requests that the proposal be evaluated.
B-297968, Project Resources, Inc., March 31, 2006
Decision
Matter of: Project Resources, Inc.
Jeremiah D. Jackson for the protester.
Annette B. Kuz, Esq., and William L. Henson, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Where the record shows that the agency lost the protester's proposal, a protest of the agency's evaluation and award decision is nevertheless denied because the record does not demonstrate a systemic failure in the agency's proposal receipt process.
DECISION
Project Resources, Inc. (PRI) protests the failure of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate its proposal for environmental remediation services under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91238-05-R-0022. PRI contends that the agency lost its proposal and requests that the proposal be evaluated.
The RFP provided that the agency would award up to five indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts for remediation services to section 8(a) contractors. The RFP required that proposals be submitted to the Department of the Army at the office of the Sacramento District Corps of Engineers, in
PRI protests the failure of the agency to evaluate its proposal. It has provided a copy of its proposal, which it asserts is an exact duplicate of the original proposal that was timely submitted and lost, and requests that we direct the agency to evaluate it.
Agencies have a fundamental obligation to have procedures in place to receive submissions for competitors under a solicitation, to reasonably safeguard submissions received, and to fairly consider all submissions received. As a practical matter, however, even with appropriate procedures in place, an agency may lose or misplace a submission, and such occasional loss--even if through agency negligence--generally does not entitle an aggrieved competitor to relief. Shubhada, Inc., B'292437,
This arguably harsh result is justified by the unique circumstances arising in protests concerning lost information. The only means generally available to establish the content of lost information is for the protester to reconstruct that information. However, allowing an offeror to establish the content of its lost proposal after the closing date has passed would be inconsistent with maintaining a fair competitive system. Shubhada, Inc., supra, at 4. Here, the only evidence of the content of the information that the protester may have submitted prior to closing is a copy of that information produced by PRI during this protest process. The record does not contain any pre-closing evidence of the content of PRI's proposal that the agency properly could evaluate. We therefore will not disturb the agency's decision not to reopen the competition to evaluate PRI's proposal.
Our Office has recognized a limited exception to the rule that negligent loss of proposal information does not entitle the offeror to relief. The exception generally applies where the loss was not an isolated act of negligence, but was the result of a systemic failure resulting in multiple or repetitive instances of lost information. East West Research Inc.. B'239565, B-239566,
The protest is denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel