Outdoor Venture Corporation, B-288894.2, December 19, 2001

B-288894.2 Dec 19, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Properly was rejected as technically unacceptable after initially having been included in the competitive range. 2. Solicitation provision that multiple awards are anticipated does not obligate agency to make more than one award where only one technically acceptable proposal is received. During which delivery order competition was anticipated. 000 if a single award was made or $100. 000 if multiple awards were made. AMC had developed an LME performance specification (LME PS) that was used as the basis for a solicitation issued in 1997. The contractor was required to "develop. Offerors were required to submit a proposal that "meets or exceeds the minimum performance requirements described in the LME PS.". View Decision Outdoor Venture Corporation, B-288894.2, December 19, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Outdoor Venture Corporation (OVC) protests the agency's decision to reject OVC's proposal as technically acceptable and to make a single contract award to Camel Manufacturing Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAD16-00-0031, issued by the Army Materiel Command (AMC) as a total small business HUBZone set-aside for the procurement of certain lightweight maintenance enclosures (LME) and associated spare and repair parts. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on February 16, 2001, contemplated the award, using "best-value" criteria, of multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for a base 3-year ordering period with two 3-year option periods, during which delivery order competition was anticipated. The RFP set forth a minimum production contract value of $200,000 if a single award was made or $100,000 if multiple awards were made, and included a first-article test sample requirement for two LMEs for the limited purpose of agency inspection to verify interchangeability between LMEs. AMC had developed an LME performance specification (LME PS) that was used as the basis for a solicitation issued in 1997, under which OVC had competed unsuccessfully and Camel had been awarded a low rate initial production contract with follow-on production options. The statement of work (SOW) under the current solicitation required production in accordance with the LME PS, and in particular, the contractor was required to "develop, fabricate, integrate, test, document, deliver and support the LME system to meet the requirements of the [attached LME PS]." RFP Sec. C2.3. To ensure compliance, offerors were required to submit a proposal that "meets or exceeds the minimum performance requirements described in the LME PS." RFP Sec. C2.1. The LME PS contained a number of specific testing requirements, including requirements for full scale performance verification testing under specified environmental conditions. Agency Report (AR), Tab F, LME PS, at 8-24. The agency made available for review technical drawings that had been provided by Camel under the predecessor contract, that did not constitute a comprehensive data package, but were furnished to ensure that follow-on systems would be compatible with the existing LME. Contracting Officer's Statement at 4. Only two proposals were received by the May 1 closing date, one from Camel, the other from OVC. The agency evaluated Camel's proposal as technically acceptable and OVC's proposal as technically unacceptable. However, OVC proposed a substantially lower evaluated price than Camel, and the source selection authority (SSA) decided to include OVC's proposal in the competitive range. The agency conducted discussions using written discussion items (DI); Camel was given three DIs and OVC was given 52 DIs. After receiving written responses, on August 24, the agency solicited final proposal revisions (FPR), due by August 29, 2001. On September 5, the SSA concluded that OVC's proposal remained technically unacceptable, and therefore determined to make one award only, to Camel, the only offeror that had submitted a technically acceptable proposal. AR, Tab Q, SSA Decision Document, at 2. OVC received a debriefing on September 18, and subsequently timely filed this protest with our Office. OVC protests that the agency improperly rejected OVC's proposal based on its failure to evaluate OVC's proposal in accordance with the RFP or to conduct meaningful discussions, and that the decision to make only one award to Camel at a substantial price premium is arbitrary and not in accordance with the solicitation criteria. EVALUATION AND DISCUSSIONS Where a protester challenges an agency's evaluation resulting in the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable, our review is limited to considering whether the evaluation and determination were reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the RFP and applicable regulations and statutes. Loral Sys. Co., B-270755, Apr. 17, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para. 241 at 7.