Martin Warehousing & Distribution, Inc.

B-270651.2 Apr 25, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester's proposal was properly rejected as unacceptable where moving services solicitation contemplated award of primary and secondary contracts and specifically warned that a conditioned offer would not be eligible for award. Protester's proposal was conditioned to state that it was for primary award only. Offerors were required to provide unit and extended prices based on the estimates. Offers had to be based on at least the 200 NCWT minimum daily guaranteed quantity and were permitted to be based on a daily quantity guarantee up to the government's 1. Until the agency's total daily requirement is fulfilled. One of which was the lowest priced. Only WMS' proposal (the third lowest) was found technically acceptable. View Decision Matter of: Martin Warehousing & Distribution, Inc. File: B-270651.2 Date: April 25, 1996 Protester's proposal was properly rejected as unacceptable where moving services solicitation contemplated award of primary and secondary contracts and specifically warned that a conditioned offer would not be eligible for award, and protester's proposal was conditioned to state that it was for primary award only. Attorneys DECISION Martin Warehousing & Distribution, Inc. (MWD) protests the award of a contract to Windward Moving & Storage, Inc. (WMS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00604-95-R-0151, issued by the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, for household goods packing and crating services (Schedule III) on the island of Oahu. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplated the award of one or more indefinite delivery requirements contracts for a 1-year period, based on both technical and price evaluations. The schedule set forth estimated quantities for each line item, and offerors were required to provide unit and extended prices based on the estimates. The schedule provided the government's minimum and maximum daily requirements expressed in terms of "net hundred weight" (NCWT) units; offers had to be based on at least the 200 NCWT minimum daily guaranteed quantity and were permitted to be based on a daily quantity guarantee up to the government's 1,300 NCWT estimated maximum. Under the contracts awarded, the agency would place orders for services with the firm awarded the primary contract up to its guaranteed maximum daily capacity. Orders for additional requirements then would be placed in a like manner with the next higher-priced, secondary contractor to the extent of its guaranteed maximum capacity, and so on, until the agency's total daily requirement is fulfilled. The agency received nine offers from six offerors, including three from MWD, one of which was the lowest priced. However, only WMS' proposal (the third lowest) was found technically acceptable. The other eight proposals, including all three of MWD's, were found technically unacceptable for failure to provide required information regarding key personnel, quality assurance plan, and past performance. In addition, since MWD's low-priced proposal (the only one relevant here) stated that "This offer is for primary only," and the other two proposals were similarly limited to the secondary award, the agency found that the proposals contained unacceptable conditions that rendered them unacceptable. A single award thus was made to WMS. ARGUMENT MWD argues that the rejection of its low-priced proposal was improper because (1) the perceived deficiencies in its technical proposal were unjustified and could have been rectified through discussions, and (2) the "primary only" condition was permitted under the RFP. MWD concludes that it should have received award in light of its low price and higher (than WMS') guaranteed capacity. ANALYSIS The RFP contained the following provision at section L100B.2(5): "OFFERORS SHALL NOT CONDITION THEIR PRICING PROPOSAL. ANY OFFEROR WHO DOES WILL NOT BE EVALUATED OR CONSIDERED FOR AWARD." The Navy explains that section L100B.2(5) was included in the solicitation to prevent firms from offering only for the primary award because this practice previously had been permitted and had undercut the agency's ability to make the series of awards most beneficial to the government. For example, while a secondary award might ordinarily be made to the second low offeror, if the offer contained a primary only condition, such an award could not be made. Such conditions also create the possibility that firms might offer only on the primary contract (since, as the contract of first resort, it likely would result in the greatest volume for the contractor); this could result in limited offers for the secondary and tertiary awards, making it impossible for the agency to make reasonably priced secondary and tertiary awards. We agree with the Navy that MWD impermissibly conditioned its offer.