McCombs Fleet Services, B-278330, January 16, 1998

B-278330 Jan 16, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that offerors were treated unequally to the detriment of the protester is denied where the allegation stems from the protester's having been appropriately cautioned by the contracting officer about the requirement for independent pricing. While other offerors submitted successful proposals that the protester incorrectly believes should have been understood to evidence a violation of the requirement for independent pricing. The crux of the protest is that offerors were treated unequally to the detriment of McCombs. Separate contracts were to be awarded under each line item for Chrysler. Johnsons offered Dodge trucks (which are Chrysler products). Johnsons was awarded a contract for Dodge trucks with an estimated value of $13.4 million. View Decision Matter of: McCombs Fleet Services File: B-278330 Date: January 16, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION McCombs Fleet Services protests contract awards to Johnsons of Kingfisher and Carter Chevrolet Agency, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. FCAP-FM-CCWTB-8-14-97, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for light truck assemblies consisting of cabs and chassis made by Ford Motor Company, the Chrysler Corporation, and General Motors Corporation (GM), and bodies fabricated to meet the government's specifications. The crux of the protest is that offerors were treated unequally to the detriment of McCombs. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on June 15, 1997, with a closing date of August 14, contemplated award on the basis of evaluated low price of indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts for various line items representing different truck configurations. Separate contracts were to be awarded under each line item for Chrysler, Ford, and GM products. Johnsons offered Dodge trucks (which are Chrysler products); Carter offered GM trucks; and McCombs offered GM trucks for certain line items and Ford trucks for others. Johnsons was awarded a contract for Dodge trucks with an estimated value of $13.4 million; Carter was awarded a contract for GM trucks with an estimated value of $31.2 million; and the protester was awarded a contract for Ford and GM trucks with an estimated value of $16.8 million. PROTEST The protester's allegation of unequal treatment arises from a telephone conversation between the firm's government contracts representative and the contracting officer, which McCombs initiated in early August, prior to the closing date for receipt of initial proposals. In its initial protest submission, McCombs maintained that, in response to its question as to whether the firm could submit three separate proposals for Ford, Dodge and GM trucks, the advice given by the contracting officer was "no" because of the way she cautioned about the requirement for independent pricing. McCombs took the position that this advice precluded the firm from offering Dodge products because it did not own a Dodge dealership. In contrast, according to McCombs, Johnsons and Carter were permitted to enter into an arrangement whereby Carter--which does not own a Dodge dealership--prepared both offers and profited by Johnsons's offer of Dodge products because Johnsons proposed to use a fabrication subcontractor owned by Carter. The protester also asserts that this arrangement enabled Carter to reduce its prices for GM products. In McCombs's view, the awards to these offerors represented unequal treatment because the contracting officer's advice had effectively prevented McCombs from similarly "profiting" by entering into some sort of unspecified arrangement with a Dodge dealer. As explained below, the contracting officer's advice to McCombs was not inappropriate and there was no unequal treatment, because the record does not support McCombs's speculation that the other two offerors were permitted to enter into a relationship which violated the requirement for independent pricing. ANALYSIS The August Conversation Because of the parties' dispute about what was said during the early August conversation, our Office conducted a telephonic hearing at which the two participants testified concerning their recollection of the conversation. [1] McCombs's representative testified that he asked two questions; the contracting officer states that only one question was asked. Both witnesses agree that the contracting officer was asked whether the McCombs representative could sign and submit three separate proposals, one each for Dodge, Ford, and GM products.