TRS Research

B-274845 Jan 07, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency improperly rejected proposal as technically unacceptable and failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the protester is denied where discussion question reasonably apprised protester of its proposal's technical deficiency. TRS alleges that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions and improperly determined that its proposal was technically noncompliant. The RFP was issued on June 6. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror submitting the lowest priced technically acceptable offer. Section 3.0 of the statement of work (SOW) provided that the minimum "clear loading" dimensions for the containers were 224.5 inches in length. Amendment No. 0001 was issued on July 1. View Decision Matter of: TRS Research File: B-274845 Date: January 7, 1997 Protest that agency improperly rejected proposal as technically unacceptable and failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the protester is denied where discussion question reasonably apprised protester of its proposal's technical deficiency, and protester failed to correct the deficiency unambiguously in its best and final offer. Attorneys DECISION TRS Research (TRS) protests the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable under request for proposals (RFP) No. M67004-96-R-0031, issued by the United States Marine Corps for collapsible flatrack containers to be used on shipboard to hold expeditionary airfield modules. TRS alleges that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions and improperly determined that its proposal was technically noncompliant. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on June 6, 1996, with an original closing date of July 7. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror submitting the lowest priced technically acceptable offer. Section 3.0 of the statement of work (SOW) provided that the minimum "clear loading" dimensions for the containers were 224.5 inches in length, 95.5 inches in width, and 89.79 inches in height. Section 3.3 of the SOW required offerors to submit two complete sets of blueprint/design drawings indicating the container measurements in U.S. measures and bearing the stamped approval of an internationally recognized agency such as the American Bureau of Shipping or Lloyds Register of Industrial Services. Amendment No. 0001 was issued on July 1, making certain changes to the SOW (but not to the dimensions or the drawing requirements) and further defining what "clear loading" meant. The amendment also stressed the need to submit approved drawings stating that they were "necessary to evaluate vendors' proposals," and extended the closing date until July 17. On July 12, TRS' president contacted the agency contracting specialist by telephone to discuss the amendment because he was concerned that the changes would require the firm to obtain revised drawings, which the protester believed could not be accomplished before the new closing date. According to the president's account of the conversation, the contracting specialist "advised me at that time that it was not necessary to send in revised drawings." TRS' president also states that he confirmed the conversation the same day by fax indicating that the firm would provide drawings and specifications if it was deemed necessary by the government. According to the contracting specialist's account of the conversation, TRS' president "asked me if I would extend the closing date . . . because his drawings did not meet the specifications . . . and that he would not have time to get new drawings from the manufacturer in Italy and have them approved . . . before the 17th of July." Her statement continues: "I told him we could not extend the closing date because we had to make award by 30 September 1996 or we would lose the money. I told him that we evaluate all proposals and hold written discussions with the offerors in the competitive range. If he was in the competitive range he would have a chance to submit revised drawings that would comply with the specifications required by amendment 0001. I never told [him] that he did not need to submit revised drawings. At the time of the conversation, I had not seen [his] drawings and would not have told him that he didn't have to submit revised drawings. That would be tantamount to saying that he didn't need to submit drawings at all." Eight offers were received by July 17. TRS' offer contained a narrative and approved drawings which stated loading dimensions in metric terms which, when converted to U.S. measurements, did not comply with the minimum clear loading requirements of the RFP. On July 31, written discussions were conducted, and the contracting officer indicated the following deficiency to the firm: "3.0 Weight, Ratings, and Dimensions. Weights, ratings and dimensions are not in U.S. measurements. Conversion from metric to U.S.