Pacific Island Movers, B-287643.2, July 19, 2001

B-287643.2 Jul 19, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights In response to a protest which raised reasonable concerns that there were errors in the conduct of the reverse auction. Pacific contends that it was entitled to award on the basis of its low price under a reverse auction conducted by the agency prior to the request for revised proposals. Stated that technical acceptability and past performance together were significantly more important than price. Also stated that the "technical acceptable" and past performance factors were together approximately equal to price (which again suggested that award would be based on a cost/technical tradeoff. Detailed instructions were provided for the conduct of the reverse auction. Offerors were informed that price revisions could only be made during the reverse auction. View Decision Pacific Island Movers, B-287643.2, July 19, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Pacific Island Movers protests the agency's decision to obtain revised proposals under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00604-01-R-A006, issued by the Department of the Navy, for packing and crating services. Pacific contends that it was entitled to award on the basis of its low price under a reverse auction conducted by the agency prior to the request for revised proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside under the commercial item acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, provided for the award of a fixed-price, requirements contract to perform packing and crating services on Guam for a 6-month base period with 4 option years. The RFP contained 173 contract line items (CLIN), each of which stated an estimated quantity of services. The RFP also listed an "EST MIN AMOUNT," presumably meaning an estimated minimum amount, for each CLIN. As originally issued, the RFP identified technical acceptability, past performance, and price as the evaluation factors, and stated that technical acceptability and past performance together were significantly more important than price. RFP at 155. Notwithstanding this indication that award would be made on the basis of a cost/technical tradeoff, the contracting officer informed offerors at a pre-proposal conference that the basis for award would be "low cost technically acceptable." Agency Report, Tab 8, Pre-Proposal Conference Slides (Mar. 26, 2001), at 3. Subsequently, on April 3, the Navy amended the RFP evaluation criteria to state that proposals would be evaluated under the following factors: "technical acceptable (Interstate Commerce Commission certificate to perform drayage services), past performance (References shall be used as responsibility checks), and price." The RFP, as amended, also stated that the "technical acceptable" and past performance factors were together approximately equal to price (which again suggested that award would be based on a cost/technical tradeoff, contrary to the contracting officer's pre-proposal conference statement). RFP amend. No. 2 at 181. The RFP also provided for a reverse auction price competition after submission of proposals. Detailed instructions were provided for the conduct of the reverse auction. RFP, attach. 2, Reverse Auction Instructions. Among other things, offerors were informed that price revisions could only be made during the reverse auction, and that submission of a proposal in response to the RFP was considered consent to participate in the reverse auction and to reveal the offeror's prices (although the identity of the offeror would remain anonymous). The RFP allowed for revisions to any or all of the 173 CLINs during the reverse auction, and promised to provide during the auction a real-time software analysis showing the offerors' relative position in the competition. The RFP also provided that the reverse auction would be conducted for 60 minutes, but that offers submitted within 5 minutes before expiration of the auction would extend the auction for an additional 15 minutes. Id. at 3-4. In response to the RFP, the Navy received offers from Pacific and Dewitt Transportation Services of Guam. Agency Report at 3. Both were found technically acceptable. The reverse auction began on April 18 and continued on April 19. The reverse auction took far longer than the 60 minutes provided for by the RFP apparently because of the provision that the auction would be extended if offers were submitted in the last 5 minutes of the auction. On April 19, at 2 p.m. (Hawaii Standard Time (HST)), the Navy issued RFP amendment No. 4, which provided that the reverse auction would end that day at 3 p.m. HST, notwithstanding the provision that offers submitted within 5 minutes of the expiration of the auction would extend the auction. At the conclusion of the auction, Pacific was found to have submitted the lowest overall priced proposal. On April 26, Dewitt protested to our Office, challenging the conduct of the reverse auction.