Hentzen Coatings, Inc.

B-274317 Dec 02, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Award of a contract to the offeror of the higher-priced proposal was proper where: (1) the request for proposals indicated that proposals would be evaluated on two factors. That delivery was more important than price. (2) the contracting officer reasonably determined that it was worth spending additional money to obtain the entire quantity of urgently required camouflage coating kits faster under the awardee's accelerated delivery schedule. TFTP-96-DS-2000. [1] The protester contends that a proper evaluation of proposals would have resulted in award of the contract to Hentzen on the basis of its lowest-priced proposal. 400 waterborne polyurethane camouflage kits. [2] Each kit consists of two separate components that are mixed together and then painted on various types of Marine tactical equipment. View Decision Matter of: Hentzen Coatings, Inc. File: B-274317 Date: December 2, 1996 Award of a contract to the offeror of the higher-priced proposal was proper where: (1) the request for proposals indicated that proposals would be evaluated on two factors--delivery and price--and that delivery was more important than price; and (2) the contracting officer reasonably determined that it was worth spending additional money to obtain the entire quantity of urgently required camouflage coating kits faster under the awardee's accelerated delivery schedule. Attorneys DECISION Hentzen Coatings, Inc. protests the General Services Administration's (GSA) award of a contract for waterborne polyurethane camouflage coating kits to Niles Chemical Paint Co. pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. TFTP-96-DS-2000. [1] The protester contends that a proper evaluation of proposals would have resulted in award of the contract to Hentzen on the basis of its lowest-priced proposal. We deny the protest. Issued on July 12, 1996, the RFP solicited offers for supplying 16,400 waterborne polyurethane camouflage kits. [2] Each kit consists of two separate components that are mixed together and then painted on various types of Marine tactical equipment, including troop carriers and other vehicles, artillery, and support equipment. The waterborne polyurethane mixture is used as a finish coat on military equipment because it provides a surface that is easily and effectively decontaminated after exposure to liquid chemical agents. The waterborne polyurethane coating specification is a new specification intended to replace the solvent borne chemical agent resistant coating that had previously been used to coat Marine Corps equipment; the old solvent can no longer be used due to environmental regulations. The RFP stated that offers would be evaluated on the basis of two factors--time of delivery and price--and advised that the agency might award a contract on the basis of initial offers. After evaluating the four proposals received, the contracting officer decided to make award on the basis of initial proposals. Hentzen's total offered price of $464,719 was the lowest; Niles's total offered price of $569,228 was second-lowest. [3] Niles proposed to deliver the entire requirement (i.e., all 16,400 camouflage coating kits) just 35 days after receipt of order; Hentzen proposed a staggered delivery schedule in which varying portions of the camouflage coating kit requirement would be delivered at 22, 25, 27, 30, and 45 days after receipt of order. [4] The contracting officer determined that Niles's accelerated delivery schedule was better than Hentzen's and that it was worth spending an additional $104,509 to obtain faster delivery of the entire requirement from Niles. Even though Hentzen proposed to deliver some of the camouflage coating kits faster than Niles, the contracting officer noted that Niles offered to complete delivery of all required kits to the Georgia base 13 days faster than Hentzen and to the California base 10 days faster than Hentzen. The contracting officer also noted that Niles's price for delivery to the Georgia base was only about 22 percent more than Hentzen's price and that Niles's price for delivery to the California base was only about 23 percent more than Hentzen's. The contracting officer determined that Niles's prices were reasonable because they were within the price objectives previously established by the agency (i.e., Niles's prices were close to the low end of the price range the agency had established by means of an informal market survey for negotiating purposes) and because the contracting officer believed that Niles's higher prices were justified since Niles would have to incur additional effort and expense to meet its accelerated delivery schedule.