Sciaky, Inc.

B-261787.2 Nov 08, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Solicitation terms are ambiguous and result in unequal competition where the two offers reasonably understood requirements and submitted proposals on different assumptions which potentially skewed the agency's determination as to which offeror was the low. REDACTED DECISION A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. Sciaky contends that Liburdi's proposal should have been rejected as technically unacceptable because Liburdi proposed to modify only one of the six welding machines to accommodate the welding of F110 mixing ducts. A002 stated that the contractor would have to prepare a test plan. Components will include an F110 combustor. A TF33 air seal." [5] After the RFP was issued. View Decision Matter of: Sciaky, Inc. File: B-261787.2 Date: November 8, 1995 * REDACTED DECISION Solicitation terms are ambiguous and result in unequal competition where the two offers reasonably understood requirements and submitted proposals on different assumptions which potentially skewed the agency's determination as to which offeror was the low, technically acceptable offeror eligible for award. Attorneys REDACTED DECISION A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. DECISION Sciaky, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Liburdi Engineering Ltd. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F34650-95-R-0072, issued by the Department of the Air Force, Tinker Air Force Base, for the repair and refurbishment of six Sciaky welding machines. As relevant here, Sciaky contends that Liburdi's proposal should have been rejected as technically unacceptable because Liburdi proposed to modify only one of the six welding machines to accommodate the welding of F110 mixing ducts, [1] while the RFP clearly required all six refurbished welders to be capable of welding the F110 mixing ducts. [2] We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued on January 17, 1995, and as subsequently amended, stated that award would be made, on the basis of all or none, to the "responsive, responsible offeror, whose offer represents the low aggregate on all" items of the schedule. [3] The RFP also established a site visit for offerors on February 6. Amendment 0002 to the RFP included Revision F of the SOW which included an "Exhibit A" that listed four parts that the refurbished Sciaky welding machines had to be able to weld, including the F110 mixing duct, [4] the F101 LPT Nozzle, the F110 LPT Nozzle Support, and the TF33 Air Seal. The RFP also contained Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) Nos. A002 and A003. CDRL No. A002 stated that the contractor would have to prepare a test plan, including "[t]est item configuration identification for each system, subsystem, component . . . to include quantities." CDRL No. A003 stated, in relevant part, as follows: "TESTING PLANS . . . The contractor shall develop and provide an acceptance plan, including validation and verification tests to meet requirements. . . . Validation shall be held at Contractor's facility. Verification shall be held at Tinker AFB. Contractor shall plan for testing each machine to original . . . specifications and perform a weld test using an actual component, one component per machine. . . . Components will include an F110 combustor, LPT nozzle, LPT nozzle support, and a TF33 air seal." [5] After the RFP was issued, representatives from three companies, including Sciaky and Liburdi, attended the site visit. After the site visit, the agency issued amendment No. 0002 in response to questions at the site visit and revised the SOW. Two proposals were received by the March 23 due date for initial proposals--one from Sciaky and one from Liburdi. Sciaky's total price in its initial proposal for refurbishing the welders was [deleted]; Liburdi's price was [deleted]. Liburdi also offered various pricing options. As pertinent here, Liburdi's option 3 offered to "provide modifications to allow welding of F110 mixing duct" for [deleted] additional. [6] After technical evaluation, the contracting officer sent a letter to Liburdi on March 31 in which she specifically stated that "[o]ption 3 will be required." [7] On April 6, the agency requested best and final offers (BAFO). In the BAFOs, Liburdi proposed a price of [deleted], while Sciaky offered a price of [deleted], a difference of approximately [deleted]. In its BAFO, Liburdi stated as follows concerning the agency's previous written direction that the firm's option 3 was required: "Acknowledged. The option is included in our best & final pricing, and will be applied to one of the six (6) machines (to be selected by [the agency]). The pricing for this option is [deleted]. . .