Macfadden & Associates, Inc.

B-275502 Feb 27, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Macfadden & Associates, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal by the Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, under request for proposals (RFP) No. CS-95-064, issued for support services involving the design, development, programming, testing, implementation and maintenance of automated information systems. The protester contends that its proposal was improperly rejected for exceeding the page limit established in the RFP. We sustain the protest. View Decision Matter of: Macfadden & Associates, Inc. File: B-275502 Date: February 27, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Macfadden & Associates, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal by the Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, under request for proposals (RFP) No. CS-95-064, issued for support services involving the design, development, programming, testing, implementation and maintenance of automated information systems. The protester contends that its proposal was improperly rejected for exceeding the page limit established in the RFP. We sustain the protest. The RFP was issued in May 1996, and contemplated the award of an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity type contract with firm, fixed unit prices. The RFP included detailed instructions regarding the preparation of proposals, providing a specific format that offerors were to follow. Offerors were cautioned that: "[f]ailure of a proposal to comply with these instructions may be grounds for exclusion of the proposal from further consideration." [Emphasis added.] The RFP also reminded offerors not to submit any extraneous narrative material with their proposals. Proposals were to be submitted as three separate volumes covering the following: business management information; technical proposal and oral presentation; and cost/price proposal. The technical proposal was to be divided into five sections, with a total length not to exceed 100 pages, and was to be in Times Roman font with a 12-point type size. Fifteen firms, including Macfadden, submitted proposals by the June 27 closing date. When the contracting officer examined Macfadden's proposal, he found that the technical volume included 97 pages followed by a 94-page set of appendices. In addition, he noted that the first 97 pages included 13 pages that were in a smaller type size than the required 12-point type. The Customs Service notified Macfadden by letter that its proposal was "technically unacceptable and incapable of being made acceptable." Macfadden filed a protest with the agency, contending that the Customs Service was required to disclose the basis for its determination that Macfadden's proposal was technically unacceptable. The agency denied Macfadden's protest by letter, informing the protester that its technical proposal was considered noncompliant with the terms of the RFP because it exceeded the page limit. This protest followed. The agency and the protester properly acknowledge that a contracting agency may not accept excess proposal pages in contravention of a solicitation page limitation when that action would result in unequal treatment of offerors. However, Macfadden argues that it is entitled to an evaluation of the pages of its proposal that do not exceed the 100-page limit. In this instance, the Customs Service failed to conduct any technical evaluation of the pages of Macfadden's proposal that were within the page limits, based on its belief that a review of the first 97 pages of the proposal would have been "contrary to law." The agency argues that Macfadden ignored the RFP's instructions at its own peril and asserts that Macfadden's proposal is simply not entitled to further consideration because of this violation. Where an appendix included with a proposal causes the proposal to exceed a page limit established in the RFP, it would be improper for the agency to consider the appendix because to do so would confer upon the offeror furnishing the appendix a competitive advantage over those offerors whose proposals complied with the page limit. ITT Electron Technology Div., B-242289, Apr. 18, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. 383. Accordingly, where solicitations have imposed page and type limits, we have found reasonable the agency's removing pages beyond the solicitation limit and evaluating only those pages within the limit. All Star Maintenance, Inc., B-244143, Sept. 26, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 294; Infotec Dev., Inc., B-238980, July 20, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para. 58. See Management & Indus. Technologies Assocs., B-257656, Oct. 11, 1994, 94-2 CPD Para. 134; S.T. Research Corp., B-233115, Feb. 15, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 159. Whether the approach taken by the agency here--automatic rejection of an entire proposal exceeding a page limit rather than evaluation of only the proposal pages within the limit--is proper depends, in the first instance, upon the language of the solicitation.