Yoosung T&S, Ltd.�, B-291407, November 15, 2002

B-291407 Nov 15, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated protester's proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. Protester is not an interested party to challenge the agency's nonresponsibility determination since it would not be in line for award even if its protest were sustained. Yoosung argues that the Army improperly found its proposal technically unacceptable and improperly determined that it was not a responsible prospective contractor. One of which is held by Yoosung. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror submitting the lowest-priced. Offerors were to submit technical proposals addressing four technical factors. View Decision Yoosung T&S, Ltd., B-291407, November 15, 2002 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Yoosung T&S, Ltd. protests the award of a contract to Hanjin Transportation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAJB03-02-R-0104, issued by the U.S. Army Contracting Command Korea to obtain general cargo and explosive truck services for the United States Forces Korea. Yoosung argues that the Army improperly found its proposal technically unacceptable and improperly determined that it was not a responsible prospective contractor. We deny the protest. The RFP anticipated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract to obtain transportation services for the movement of general cargo and/or explosives originating within various Army movement control teams to any point in Korea. The Army currently acquires these services under two separate contracts, one of which is held by Yoosung; this RFP combines the requirements of both contracts. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer that satisfied all of the solicitation's terms and conditions. RFP at 98. To be considered technically acceptable, offerors were to submit technical proposals addressing four technical factors--quality control plan/safety plan, past performance, management capability/staffing, and equipment vehicle list/insurance liability--in sufficient detail to demonstrate their full understanding of the requirements. Id. at 96-98. The Army received proposals from 10 firms. The requiring activity evaluated the proposals and found that Hanjin's was the only one that was technically acceptable. Yoosung's proposal was found technically unacceptable under three of the four technical factors and technically unacceptable overall. The contracting officer nonetheless asked the requiring activity's quality assurance branch (QAB) to conduct preaward surveys of the five lowest-priced offerors, including Hanjin and Yoosung. /1/ The QAB found Yoosung's technical knowledge unsatisfactory because it failed to demonstrate an understanding of acceptable practices and procedures, particularly those associated with safety requirements concerning ammunition, explosives, and related dangerous material. The QAB also found Yoosung's production capability unsatisfactory because its project manager failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in the area of general and hazardous material transportation; the firm failed to demonstrate its ability to provide adequate vehicle resources; and the firm's proposed safety plan and quality control objectives failed to address specific safety issues concerning ammunition transportation. The QAB concluded that the performance risks were very high and recommended that award not be made to Yoosung. Based upon the preaward survey results, the contracting officer found that the only offeror to whom award could be made was Hanjin. The contracting officer found Yoosung to be nonresponsible for the reasons identified by the QAB and notified Yoosung of this finding on September 16. On September 23, Yoosung filed identical protests with the agency and this Office in which it argued that the Army's nonresponsibility determination lacked a sufficient basis and was not made in good faith. Citing differences between its and Hanjin's pricing for certain line items, Yoosung also asserted that Hanjin's pricing was unbalanced. Finally, Yoosung requested the results of the technical evaluation. On September 28, the Army denied Yoosung's protest, advising the firm of the technical evaluation results and restating the basis for its nonresponsibility determination. Yoosung first argues that the Army improperly found its proposal technically unacceptable, contending that its proposal contained sufficient information to meet the solicitation's requirements. /2/ The evaluation of technical proposals is primarily the responsibility of the contracting agency. SDS Int'l, Inc., B-279361 et al., June 8, 1998, 98-2 CPD Para. 7 at 3.