In a decision publicly released on Friday, March 31, in CJW-Desbuild JV, LLC, B-414219 (Mar. 17, 2017), the Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied a protest challenging the rejection of a proposal where the contractor had failed to provide a signed joint venture agreement with its proposal.
In issuing the RFP, the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) stated that award of the construction and repair contract would be made on a best value basis, with price and non-price factors considered. The non-price evaluation factors were construction experience, safety, and past performance. With regards to the construction experience factor, the RFP instructed Joint Venture (JV) offerors to submit relevant project experience completed by the JV entity. If none existed, the RFP instructed JV members to submit individual project experience but to also submit a signed copy of the JV agreement indicating the proposed participation of each JV member. The RFP stated that failure to submit the agreement would be considered unacceptable.
CJW-Desbuild JV was subsequently rated “unacceptable” under the construction experience factor for failure to provide the signed copy of its JV agreement. CJW Desbuild argued that its failure to submit a signed copy was a “minor oversight” and that it was “unreasonable” for the agency to downgrade its proposal. CJW Desbuild further argued that NAVFAC should have used clarifications in order to permit the JV to submit its signed agreement.
The GAO disagreed and found that because the requirement for a signed JV agreement was specifically linked to technical acceptability, it could not be considered an informality. The GAO also concluded that the JV’s failure to provide its signed agreement could not have been remedied through clarifications, as clarifications cannot be used to cure deficiencies or material omissions in a proposal. Furthermore, the GAO noted that even if the protestor’s failure to submit the signed agreement had been a minor clerical error, the agency is permitted, but not required, to give it the opportunity to correct it via clarifications.
About the Author:
Heather Mims is an associate attorney at Centre Law & Consulting. Her practice is primarily focused on government contracts law, employment law, and litigation. Heather graduated magna cum laude from the George Mason School of Law where she was the Senior Research Editor for the Law Review and a Writing Fellow.