LaBarge Products, Inc., B-287841; B-287841.2, August 20, 2001

LaBarge Products, Inc., B-287841; B-287841.2, August 20, 2001 TITLE: LaBarge Products, Inc., B-287841; B-287841.2, August 20, 2001 BNUMBER: B-287841; B-287841.2 DATE: August 20, 2001 ********************************************************************** LaBarge Products, Inc., B-287841; B-287841.2, August 20, 2001 Decision Matter of: LaBarge Products, Inc. File: B-287841; B-287841.2 Date: August 20, 2001 William H. Gammon, Esq., Moore & Van Allen, for the protester. Vera Meza, Esq., and Elizabeth Burt, Esq., U. S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of General Counsel, GAO, participated in preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably excluded from the competitive range as unacceptable proposal with significant informational deficiencies. DECISION LaBarge Products, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as unacceptable under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAE07-00-R-T056, issued by the U. S. Army Materiel Command (AMC), U. S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, for acquisition of the Advanced Aviation Forward Area Refueling System (AAFARS). We deny the protest. The RFP provided for award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract to continue production of the current AAFARS system, based on a revised performance-based purchase description, and furnish up to 375 AAFARS systems (and associated logistics support and training) over a period of 8 years. The AAFARS refueling system consists of a pumping system, filtration system, nozzles, hoses, couplings and ground rods; the system draws fuel from four 500-gallon fuel drums and provides filtered fuel at a rate of 55 gallons per minute (gpm) simultaneously to four nozzles located 100 feet apart. The AAFARS is used to refuel up to four helicopters in tactical locations when the refueling site is inaccessible to ground vehicles or urgency requires rapid air deployment. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. The solicitation provided for proposals to be evaluated under three evaluation areas: (1) capability, including evaluation elements for ability to meet requirements and experience; (2) cost/price, including evaluation elements for evaluated price and cost realism for the logistics requirements; and (3) past performance/small business participation. Capability was more important than cost/price and past performance/small business participation combined. For each of the evaluation areas, the RFP required offerors to submit detailed, extensive discussions of their proposed approach and qualifications. [DELETED] offerors submitted proposals, [DELETED] of which--[DELETED]--were included in the competitive range. LaBarge's proposal was rejected on the basis that it "lacks support and elaboration which was required in Section L of the . . . RFP to permit us to evaluate it." AMC Letter to LaBarge, Mar. 26, 2001, at 1. Upon learning of the rejection of its proposal, LaBarge filed an agency-level protest; after that protest was denied, it filed this protest with our Office. LaBarge acknowledges that it "did not submit the most elaborately formatted proposal," but points to language in solicitation section L.3.1 advising offerors that "[e]laborate format is not desired." Protester Comments, July 17, 2001, at 2. LaBarge generally asserts that it is "essentially offering the same item as [DELETED]." LaBarge Comments, July 5, 2001, at 4. LaBarge concludes that it was unreasonable for the agency to reject its proposal, which offered the low cost to the government, without first conducting discussions with the firm. An offeror must submit an initial proposal that is adequately written and that establishes its merits, or run the risk of having its proposal rejected as technically unacceptable. Agencies may exclude proposals with significant informational deficiencies from further consideration whether the deficiencies are attributable to omitted or merely inadequate information addressing fundamental factors. Generally, offers that are technically unacceptable as submitted and would require major revisions to become acceptable are not required to be included in the competitive range for discussion purposes. Essex Electro Engineers, Inc., B-284149, B-284149.2, Feb. 28, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 72 at 6; Global Eng'g & Constr., Joint Venture, B-275999.4, B-275999.5, Oct. 6, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 125 at 3. The determination of whether a proposal is in the competitive range is principally a matter within the discretion of the procuring agency. Dismas Charities, Inc., B-284754, May 22, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 84 at 3. Our Office will review an agency's evaluation of proposals and determination to exclude a proposal from the competitive range for reasonableness and consistency with the criteria and language of the solicitation. SOS Interpreting, Ltd., B-287505, June 12, 2001, 2001 CPD para.