Jump to content

Manadatory Site Visit


C Culham

Recommended Posts

Can a site visit for project be mandatory where bids/offers from bidders/offerors who have not attended are not considered?

My review has located –

1. GAO Decision B-220386, Jan 8, 1986, which states in part thatA firm's failure to attend a site visit is not a valid basis to reject an otherwise acceptable offer.”

2. An Ask the Professor Q/A that states a mandatory site visit is not permissible and suggests attendance should be an evaluation factor. This post by Ask provides no reference other than Federal contracting is to be full and open competition and a mandatory visit would be limiting competition.

3. Several FBO posted solicitations that require mandatory attendance for consideration of bid/offer.

In asking the above question I acknowledge that No. 3 is not authoritative but still has me wondering whether a mandatory site visit can be required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following text is extracted from the GAO Decision referenced by C Culham...

WE SEE NO REASONABLE BASIS ON WHICH THE NAVY COULD LIMIT THE PROCUREMENT TO THOSE FIRMS WHICH HAD ATTENDED THE INITIAL SITE VISIT, AS THE PROTESTER'S INTERPRETATION WOULD REQUIRE. IN ANY EVENT, A BIDDER'S FAILURE TO MAKE A SITE VISIT, EVEN WHERE THE SOLICITATION SO REQUIRES, IS NOT A VALID BASIS ON WHICH TO REJECT AN OTHERWISE RESPONSIVE BID. EDWARD KOCHARIAN & CO., INC., 58 COMP.GEN. 214 (1979), 79-1 CPD PARA. 20. ACCORDINGLY, EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE SOLICITATION CONTAINED A MANDATORY SITE INSPECTION PROVISION, A FIRM'S FAILURE TO ATTEND THE SITE VISIT WOULD NOT PROVIDE A BASIS ON WHICH TO REJECT ITS OFFER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

I would not say it is absolutely verboten to state that a site visit is a prerequisite to proposal submission. The key would be the ability to provide a reasonable basis for such a position. Perhaps such a basis could be established. The GAO decisions in this regard are very old, but agencies still state in their solicitations that a site visit is "mandatory." See, for example, Coyol International Group, GAO Dec. B-408982.2, 2014 CPD ¶ 40.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rule that I have always followed is a two part rule.

Part 1: Do not ever under any circumstance require that prospective offeror shall attend a site visit. This is because your requirements package should be well enough written that an accurate proposal can be prepared absent a site visit.

Part 2: Always offer a site visit so that propsective offerors can satisfy themselves and their potential subcontractors of the obvious conditions which for whatever reason are not written into the requirement; And also state that failure to attend the site visit and failure to identify obvioius conditions does not constitute a valid claim for a differing site condition once the work is executed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rule that I have always followed is a two part rule.

Part 1: Do not ever under any circumstance require that prospective offeror shall attend a site visit. This is because your requirements package should be well enough written that an accurate proposal can be prepared absent a site visit.

Part 2: Always offer a site visit so that propsective offerors can satisfy themselves and their potential subcontractors of the obvious conditions which for whatever reason are not written into the requirement; And also state that failure to attend the site visit and failure to identify obvioius conditions does not constitute a valid claim for a differing site condition once the work is executed.

Carl, my advice to you is that there are sometimes construction sites or projects that are so complex or difficult to access for familiarization that it would be STUPID not to require proposing teams to attend a site visit.

I disagree with the above Part 1 rule condition "not ever under any circumstance". Under appropriate circumstances, I'd question why one would otherwise bury one's head in the sand and hope that everything is just peachy and rosy during contract execution, with an excuse in your pocket when something huge goes wrong due to a firm's failure to understand the complexity of the existing site? That doesn't get the mission accomplished or save taxpayers money. Below is an example of a project where compulsory participation on site visit should have been justifiable. You may or may not read at your discretion.

Back in 1996 or so, during a pre-proposal conference, we had a mandatory site visit for a project to totally renovate and update the Climatic Hangar at Eglin AFB, FL. Part of the hangar was actually a huge area that would fit several huge aircraft inside. The purpose of the chamber was to test aircraft and their systems. The chamber had the capability to test at temperatures ranging from below something like minus 90 degrees (or so) F to over 200 degrees F or so. The Hangar was originally built in circa 1947, almost 50 years prior.

This was a restricted area, so it was very difficult to access the site for anyone, let alone prospective contractors and their subs. To put the size of this building into perspective, there was a B-2 bomber in the rear of the hangar test chamber area that looked like a model airplane in comparison to the volume of this building. Renovation projects are challenging enough but all the factors were present for a disaster if the contractor did not understand the immensity, condition of and complexity of the existing building.

The Air Force and Corps of Engineers had no interest in managing a contract with a firm that found out the compexity of this project the hard way, Simply being able to defend differing site condition claims doesnt get a project built within budget and critical schedules. The Air Force testing program was out of business during the contract period, so schedule was absolutely critical and the budget was limited, so we didnt need any more contingencies than necessary to be reflected in the pricing. We didn't need a contractor who was in over its head.

Avoiding disasters, claims and delays were the primary goals of the site visit, not just successfully defending a claim. In addition, there was a need to avoid consequential damages that may not or may not be be recoverable by either side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...