Container Products Corporation, B-280603.4, May 20, 1999

B-280603.4 May 20, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Exclusion of the protester's proposal from the competitive range was reasonable where offeror failed to provide any schedule for first article and production testing. The protester argues that the evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. The QUADCONS at issue here are an intermediate-size cargo container designed for shipment and transportation of military supplies and equipment. CPC argues that it promised to comply with RFP requirements and that this promise should have been sufficient for the evaluators to find its proposal technically acceptable. Here we find that the evaluation of CPC's proposal and its elimination from the competitive range were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. View Decision Matter of: Container Products Corporation File: B-280603.4 Date: May 20, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Container Products Corporation (CPC) protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. M67854-98-R-3005, issued by the United States Marine Corps for cargo containers. The protester argues that the evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. We deny the protest. On June 10, 1998, the agency issued the RFP for production and delivery of quadruple containers (QUADCONS), container racks, and horizontal connectors; the QUADCONS at issue here are an intermediate-size cargo container designed for shipment and transportation of military supplies and equipment. See Container Prods. Corp., B-280603.2, Nov. 4, 1998, 98-2 CPD Para. 106 at 1. Section F-1 of the RFP advised offerors of the agency's intention to issue delivery orders for contract line item numbers (CLIN) 0001-0003, for first articles, at award. Section F-2 provided for delivery of CLIN 0004, production lots of QUADCONS, every 30 days beginning 180 days after issuance of the first delivery order. RFP at B-2. The solicitation provided for award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror. RFP at F-1, L-11, and M-1 to M-2. The agency advised offerors that it would not award a contract to an offeror with a rating lower than "Acceptable" for any evaluated factor or subfactor. RFP at M-2. Section M-3 established the evaluation factors and areas of consideration, as follows: Technical (three subfactors: weight, environmental, and compatibility/ interoperability); Management (two subfactors: manufacturing/ production capability and facilities, and testing); Past Performance (two subfactors: corporate experience and historical past performance); price; and Subcontracting Plan. Section L of the RFP advised offerors how to prepare and submit their proposals. As relevant here, section L-6.2.2 for the subfactor of testing advised as follows: The Offeror shall adequately describe the planning/schedule and execution of First Article Testing and Production Acceptance Testing set forth in [the purchase descriptions]. The offeror shall demonstrate an ability to successfully test the proposed CSC certified QUADCON container(s), and associated hardware in accordance with First Article and Production Acceptance Testing requirements set forth in the subject [purchase descriptions] . . . . The agency received proposals on January 22, 1999. One firm had failed to provide a technical proposal; the agency referred the remaining proposals for a technical evaluation. Business Clearance Memorandum, Mar. 3, 1999, at 6. Evaluators rated CPC's management proposal "Marginal" for the first subfactor, "manufacturing/ production capability and facilities," and "Unacceptable" for the second subfactor, "testing." Evaluators found that CPC did not provide a schedule for first article or production acceptance testing but advised that it would plan such testing after award. The evaluators noted that CPC's proposal merely repeated and acknowledged requirements, without providing information on the protester's plans and capabilities for such testing. /1/ Agency Request for Dismissal, encl. 3, QUADCON Technical Evaluation Discussion of Unacceptable Factors at 3. The proposal received only two "Acceptable" ratings for the seven rated subfactors. /2/ Because they considered the proposal unacceptable under the testing subfactor, evaluators rated the proposal "Unacceptable" overall. By letter dated March 5, 1999, the agency advised CPC that its proposal had been eliminated from the competitive range, and this protest followed. CPC asserts that it submitted a proposal fully compliant with the RFP. The protester contends that it did not provide a testing schedule because the RFP did not contain firm dates for first article and production testing, and had no requirement, either explicit or implicit, for submitting a generic schedule--i.e., one stated in terms of days after award. Protester's Letter, Mar. 18, 1999, at 4.