Robotic Systems Technology

B-271760 May 14, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The protester is not an interested party eligible to challenge the award of a contract where the protester during negotiations withdrew its proposed pricing with a promise to perform the contract at pricing to be provided in its best and final offer (BAFO) and the protester did not submit a BAFO or to otherwise confirm its earlier offer by the date and time specified for receipt of BAFOs. We dismiss the protest because Robotic is not an interested party to challenge the award to Minowitz. Technical and cost proposals were requested. All three offerors were included in the competitive range and received discussions. "at the prices that will be set forth in your [BAFO].". Robotic responded on the same date by informing the Army that: "Robotic . . . agrees to furnish and deliver all items or perform all the services set forth or otherwise identified in the subject solicitation and amendments 0001 through 0004 for the prices that will be set forth in our [BAFO].". View Decision Matter of: Robotic Systems Technology File: B-271760 Date: May 14, 1996 The protester is not an interested party eligible to challenge the award of a contract where the protester during negotiations withdrew its proposed pricing with a promise to perform the contract at pricing to be provided in its best and final offer (BAFO) and the protester did not submit a BAFO or to otherwise confirm its earlier offer by the date and time specified for receipt of BAFOs. Attorneys DECISION Robotic Systems Technology protests the award of a contract to Minowitz Manufacturing Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAE20-95-R-0251, issued by the Department of the Army for smoke generator sets. We dismiss the protest because Robotic is not an interested party to challenge the award to Minowitz. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract on a best value basis. Technical and cost proposals were requested. The Army received proposals from three offerors, including Robotic and Minowitz, by the December 11, 1995, closing date for receipt of proposals. All three offerors were included in the competitive range and received discussions. In response to discussions, Robotic modified its initial proposal on January 19, 1996, to substantially lower its proposed price. Thereafter, by amendments 0003 and 0004 to the RFP, the Army modified the solicitation's scope of work. On February 26, the Army directed offerors to agree to the terms of the RFP, as amended, and "at the prices that will be set forth in your [BAFO]." Robotic responded on the same date by informing the Army that: "Robotic . . . agrees to furnish and deliver all items or perform all the services set forth or otherwise identified in the subject solicitation and amendments 0001 through 0004 for the prices that will be set forth in our [BAFO]." On February 27, the Army requested, by amendment 0005, that BAFOs be submitted by February 29. Offerors were cautioned that "offerors who do not intend to modify their original offer, but who do want to be considered for award, must confirm their offers by responding to this request for [BAFOs] to remain in consideration for award." Robotic did not submit a BAFO or confirm its offer by the February 29 closing date for receipt of BAFOs. The contracting officer contacted Robotic on March 1 and discovered that Robotic mistakenly had failed to file a BAFO or confirmation. On March 1 after the contracting officer's call, the agency received a statement from Robotic that the protester did not intend to submit a BAFO but wished to have its January 19 revised offer considered for award. On March 4, Robotic submitted another statement proposing an $89,804 reduction in its proposed price due to "further material reductions in price from our vendors." After receipt of Robotic's March 4 offer, the contracting officer directed that all BAFOs, including Robotic's March 4 offer, be evaluated to determine "whether it was clearly in the government's best interests to reopen discussions and allow [Robotic] to submit a timely BAFO." Because the remaining offerors had submitted timely, technically acceptable, and reasonably priced BAFOs, the contracting officer determined that reopening discussions was not in the government's best interest. Contract award was made to Minowitz on March 29. Robotic protests the evaluation of its and Minowitz's proposals, the content of discussions, and the selection of Minowitz's higher-priced proposal.