Spectrum Sciences & Software, Inc., B-282373, June 22, 1999

B-282373 Jun 22, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency misled offeror into believing that it would have an additional opportunity to revise its price because the request for final proposal revision did not state that the government intended to make an award without obtaining further revisions is denied where the notice reasonably conveyed this intention by specifying that discussions had been concluded and requesting a final proposal revision. Thereby leading Spectrum to conclude that it would have a further opportunity to revise its price. Which was not provided. Is determined technically acceptable based on the minimum mandatory evaluation criteria. Five proposals were received by the February 8. Two proposals were rejected as technically unacceptable. View Decision Matter of: Spectrum Sciences & Software, Inc. File: B-282373 Date: June 22, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys Spectrum Sciences & Software, Inc. protests the award of a contract to C. Martin Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. F16602-99-R-0003, issued as a small business set-aside by the Department of the Air Force for the operation and maintenance of the Claiborne Bombing Range. The protester objects that the Air Force's letter requesting Spectrum's final proposal revision failed to specify that the agency intended to make an award without obtaining further revisions, thereby leading Spectrum to conclude that it would have a further opportunity to revise its price, which was not provided. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued on December 31, 1998, contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a base period of 1 year, with four 1-year options. The RFP stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation, is determined technically acceptable based on the minimum mandatory evaluation criteria, and offers the lowest evaluated price, based on the total price for the base year and all options years. RFP Sec. M-502. The RFP provided that the technical evaluation would result in a determination of conformance or non-conformance in respect to the following technical evaluation areas: (1) general and specific tasks; (2) government furnished property; (3) contractor furnished items and services; and (4) specific tasks. RFP Sec. M-502.c.1, c.2. In order to be rated acceptable, a proposal had to achieve a rating of acceptable in each of the technical areas. RFP Sec. M-502.c.3.a. The RFP warned offerors to propose their best offer initially since award could be based on initial proposals without discussions. RFP Sec. M-502.b.3. Five proposals were received by the February 8, 1999 closing time. Two proposals were rejected as technically unacceptable. Air Force Memorandum of Law at 1. On February 12, requests for additional information and clarifications were sent to the three remaining technically acceptable offerors, in a letter, which stated that it was not a request for final proposal revision. Responses were received and evaluated. On February 22, the three offerors were notified that discussions were concluded and that their proposals were found to be technically acceptable, and each was requested to submit a final proposal revision. The text of Spectrum's notice was as follows: 1. Written discussions have been concluded for subject solicitation and your proposal was found to be technically acceptable. Request you submit your final proposal revision on the attached schedule, pages 2 through 11. Be sure to recheck your figures to eliminate any calculation errors. 2. Final proposal revisions are due in the 2d Contracting Squadron, 841 Fairchild Ave., Suite 204, Barksdale AFB LA 71110-2271, no later than 4:00 P.M. CST on 4 March 1999. If you have any questions, please contact . . . . Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, Memorandum from Contracting Officer to Spectrum (Feb. 22, 1999). On March 2, Spectrum submitted its response entitled "Final Proposal Revision," referencing the Air Force's February 22 "Request for Final Revision." AR, Tab 12, Letter from Spectrum to Contracting Officer (Mar. 2, 1999). Spectrum's cover letter stated that it was "pleased to provide the enclosed Final Proposal Revision," and the cover sheet to its price schedule stated in large type "Price Proposal Final Revision." Spectrum's price was the highest of the three technically acceptable offerors. On March 17, the Air Force notified offerors that C. Martin Company, Inc. was the low offeror. On March 25, award was made to C. Martin, the unsuccessful offerors were notified, and Spectrum filed this protest with our Office. Spectrum argues that the award is improper because the Air Force failed to comply with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 15.307(b) because it made the award without first explicitly notifying all competitive range offerors that the government intended to make award without obtaining further revisions.