Landoll Corporation, B-291381; B-291381.2; B-291381.3, December 23, 2002

Landoll Corporation, B-291381; B-291381.2; B-291381.3, December 23, 2002 TITLE: Landoll Corporation, B-291381; B-291381.2; B-291381.3, December 23, 2002 BNUMBER: B-291381; B-291381.2; B-291381.3 DATE: December 23, 2002 ********************************************************************** Landoll Corporation, B-291381; B-291381.2; B-291381.3, December 23, 2002 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Landoll Corporation File: B-291381; B-291381.2; B-291381.3 Date: December 23, 2002 Darcy V. Hennessy, Esq., Moore Hennessy & Freeman, for the protester. Anthony H. Anikeeff, Esq., and Brian W. Baker, Esq., Bracewell & Patterson, for Watkins Aircraft Support Products, Inc., the intervenor. John D. Inazu, Esq., and P. Alan Luthy, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably evaluated awardee's past performance as *exceptional/high confidence* and protester's past performance as *satisfactory/confidence* where record shows that awardee's exemplary past performance was on *very relevant* contracts, while protester's generally positive past performance was on *semi‑relevant* contracts. 2. Contention that agency acted improperly in seeking clarification of one matter from awardee but not requesting clarification of other matters from protester is denied where agency is not generally required to seek clarification from all offerors and protester has not explained how its competitive position would have been affected if agency had sought the clarifications at issue here. 3. Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's and awardee's proposals is denied where the record shows the agency's evaluation of the proposals was reasonable and the protester's contentions represent only its disagreement with the agency's evaluation. 4. Protest that awardee's price was ambiguous is denied where the proposal was clear with regard to its proposed prices and conforms to the terms of the RFP. DECISION Landoll Corporation protests the award of a contract to Watkins Aircraft Support Products, Inc. (WASP) under request for proposals (RFP) No. FO8635-02-R-0045, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for universal munitions trailers (UMT). Landoll argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract for a minimum of two prototype UMTs, with options for production quantities of an estimated 214 UMTs (with associated items) per year over an 8-year period.[1] The solicitation stated that award would be made to the offeror submitting the proposal representing the best value to the government, considering the following evaluation factors: past performance, mission capability (comprised of two subfactors--UMT technical design and manufacturing capability), proposal risk, and cost/price.[2] The RFP stated that the past performance, mission capability, and proposal risk factors were equal in importance, followed by the cost/price factor, and that the evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price. The two mission capability subfactors were equal in importance. The agency received 18 proposals, including Landoll's and WASP's, by the RFP's closing date. Landoll's proposal was rated as *satisfactory/confidence* under the past performance factor, *green/acceptable* with *moderate* risk under the UMT technical design subfactor and *green/acceptable* with *low* risk under the manufacturing capability subfactor, at an evaluated price of $33,507,022.[3] WASP's proposal was rated as *exceptional/high confidence* under the past performance factor, *blue/exceptional* with *low* risk under the UMT technical design subfactor and *green/acceptable* with *low* risk under the manufacturing capability subfactor, at an evaluated price of $44,063,525. AR at 4-5. The agency found, in comparing the evaluation results, that WASP's proposal was the *strongest* of the proposals received under both the UMT technical design and manufacturing capability subfactors of the mission capability factor. The agency also found that WASP had the *best past performance rating out of all the offerors,* and that its evaluated price was reasonable given its consistency with the government's estimate of $44.7 million. AR, Tab 19, Proposal Analysis Report, at 5.