Charleston Marine Containers, Inc., B-283393, November 8, 1999

B-283393 Nov 08, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights " one of which is Turkey. 2. Bases of protest which fail to allege improper conduct by the agency are dismissed. General Accounting Office will not conduct investigations for the purpose of establishing whether a protester may have a valid basis for protest. 3. General Accounting Office will not sustain protest objecting to agency's failure to hold discussions where it is apparent from the record that protester could not have improved its proposal enough through discussions to be in contention for award. MTI's was the most highly rated technically and the lowest in price. /2/ The evaluators concluded that CMCI's offer contained a number of significant weaknesses. Its past performance under contracts for the same and similar items was excellent. View Decision Matter of: Charleston Marine Containers, Inc. File: B-283393 Date: November 8, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Charleston Marine Containers, Inc. (CMCI) protests the award of a contract to Military Transport, Inc. (MTI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAMT01-99-R-9007, issued by the Department of the Army's Military Traffic Management Command for the production of TRICON intermodal containers. CMCI contends that the agency failed to investigate adequately various aspects of MTI's proposal and engaged in improper discussions with the awardee. We deny the protest. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12.6 (Streamlined Procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation for Commercial Items), the Army Military Traffic Management Office posted notice of a combined synopsis/solicitation for the intermodal containers on the Commerce Business Daily Online (CBDnet) on June 3, 1999. The solicitation sought proposals for 681 new TRICON configured containers, to be constructed in accordance with Commercial Item Description A-A-65422B, Mar. 22, 1999; General Purpose Configuration Drawing Number 9-1-0533; and Shelf Configuration Drawing Number 9-1-0534. The RFP provided for award to the responsible offeror whose proposal represented the best overall value to the government based on an integrated assessment of technical capability, /1/ past performance, and price, with technical capability of significantly greater importance than past performance, and technical capability and past performance, when combined, of greater importance than price. The RFP incorporated by reference FAR Sec. 52.212-1, which provides at subsection (g): The Government intends to evaluate offerors and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror's initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the contracting officer to be necessary . . . . Of the three offers evaluated by the agency, MTI's was the most highly rated technically and the lowest in price. /2/ The evaluators concluded that CMCI's offer contained a number of significant weaknesses, and that discussions would be required to determine compliance with the government's requirements. In particular, CMCI had failed to submit a complete package of technical drawings; had referenced an outdated Commercial Item Description; had described incorrect shelving and tie-down configurations; had failed to identify the forklift pocket dimensions, restraint locations, and marking requirements; and had failed to furnish detailed information regarding, and to identify the type of, coupler. Technical Evaluation Report, June 30, 1999, at 3. In addition, the protester had not demonstrated experience in the production of the same or similar items. Id. at 4. MTI's proposal, on the other hand, "present[ed] the highest probability that the requirements [would] be met or exceeded, in an effective and efficient manner with no weaknesses noted." Id. at 2. Moreover, its past performance under contracts for the same and similar items was excellent. Id. The contracting officer determined that opening discussions to allow CMCI to resolve the weaknesses in its proposal would not be in the government's best interest because it would jeopardize the ability of any offeror to meet the required delivery date. She further determined that MTI's proposal represented the best value to the government. Notice of Award, July 22, 1999. On July 14, the agency awarded a contract to MTI. CMCI first contends that MTI intends to rely on a Turkish subcontractor for manufacture of the containers and that the provisions of the Buy American Act should therefore be applied in the evaluation of its offer. The Buy American Act, 41 U.S.C. Secs. 10a-10d (Supp.