Trandes Corporation

B-271662 Aug 02, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A proposal has not occurred where an initial proposal is prepared and submitted by one unincorporated operating unit of the offeror corporation and subsequent revised proposals are prepared and submitted by another unincorporated operating unit of the same corporation. We sustained the protest because the agency's cost evaluation was unreasonable. Trandes filed this protest alleging that MFE Co. is a separate legal entity from MASI. That MASI was the entity that submitted the initial proposal and BAFO as well as the revised proposal and revised BAFO. After the Navy advised our Office that it was undertaking the corrective action of reopening negotiations in response to these subsequent protests. View Decision Matter of: Trandes Corporation File: B-271662 Date: August 2, 1996 A succession of interest in, or a transfer of, a proposal has not occurred where an initial proposal is prepared and submitted by one unincorporated operating unit of the offeror corporation and subsequent revised proposals are prepared and submitted by another unincorporated operating unit of the same corporation, because the legal offering entity under the proposal, i.e., the offeror corporation, has not changed. Attorneys DECISION Trandes Corporation protests an award to ManTech Field Engineering Company (MFE Co.), a division of ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc. (MASI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00604-93-R-0056, issued by the Department of the Navy, Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, for engineering, installation and support services for electronic and communication equipment and systems on board naval vessels and on shore stations worldwide. We deny the protest. The Navy issued the RFP on June 18, 1993, contemplating award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, time-and-materials contract on a best value basis for a base period with four 1-year options. The Navy received initial proposals from three offerors, including Trandes and MASI. On April 1, 1994, after conducting discussions, and requesting and receiving best and final offers (BAFO), the Navy awarded the contract to MASI. Trandes protested this award to our Office. We sustained the protest because the agency's cost evaluation was unreasonable. Trandes Corp., B-256975.3, Oct. 25, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 221. In response to our decision, the agency reopened discussions, amended the RFP, and requested revised proposals. On November 13, 1995, Trandes and MFE Co., a division of MASI, submitted revised proposals, and subsequently, on March 25, 1996, submitted revised BAFOs. On March 29, the Navy awarded a contract under the RFP to MFE Co. The contract award standard form (SF 26) by which the agency executed the award did not identify MFE Co. as a division of MASI. The awardee added the words "a division of [MASI]" to the contract award form, signed and dated the form April 4, and returned it to the Navy. On April 4, after receiving notification of the award, Trandes filed this protest alleging that MFE Co. is a separate legal entity from MASI, the original offeror, and thus the submission of a revised BAFO by, and an award to, MFE Co. constitutes an unacceptable substitution of offerors. The Navy responds that no substitution of offerors has occurred; that MASI was the entity that submitted the initial proposal and BAFO as well as the revised proposal and revised BAFO. Trandes filed two subsequent protests challenging the evaluation and source selection process that resulted in the award to MFE Co. After the Navy advised our Office that it was undertaking the corrective action of reopening negotiations in response to these subsequent protests, we dismissed those protests. We did not dismiss the initial protest because this protest argues that the alleged substitution of offerors renders MASI ineligible to continue to compete under the RFP. The name of an offeror need not be exactly the same in all of the offer documents, although the offer documents or other information available must show that differently-identified offering entities are in fact the same legal entity. Dick Enters., Inc., B-259686.2, June 21, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 286, recon. denied, Dick Enters., Inc.--Protest and Recon., B-259686.3, Nov. 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 223; Mark II, Inc., B-203694, Feb. 8, 1982, 82-1 CPD para. 104. In the context of negotiated procurements, this requirement generally prohibits awarding a contract to an ambiguously identified offeror inasmuch as this may not bind any legal entity to the contract obligations, see Dick Enters., Inc., supra, or may evidence an unacceptable transfer or assignment of proposals, or an improper circumvention of the regulations governing the submission of late proposals, see Pedestrian Bus Stop Shelters, Ltd., B-212570, Mar. 20, 1984, 84-1 CPD para. 331.