Shubhada, Inc., B-292437, September 18, 2003

B-292437 Sep 18, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The agency actually may have received the proposal and lost it. A protest of the agency's evaluation and award decision generally will not be sustained. Since the content of a lost proposal is known only to the protester. Were of equal importance. Proposals were due October 17. Which was also the lowest-priced proposal. Did not include any information for review under the technical factor and thus were technically unacceptable. /1/ The agency determined that Titan's proposal was acceptable. /2/ essentially alleging that its proposal was technically acceptable and should have been selected for award. The agency report on the protest states that Shubhada's proposal was technically unacceptable because it did not include the technical information required by the RFP. View Decision Shubhada, Inc., B-292437, September 18, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Shubhada, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable, and the award of a contract to Titan Machine Products, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO560-02-R-0336, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for lock release levers for .50 caliber M2 machine guns. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on September 17, 2002, contemplated award of a fixed-price contract. The RFP stated that contract award would be on a "best value" basis, with technical factors being significantly more important than price. The technical factors--past performance and technical ability--were of equal importance. The solicitation required that proposals include detailed information related to each technical factor. For example, under the technical ability factor, the RFP required, in part, that proposals provide detailed documentation evidencing an offeror's forging and machining capabilities for at least five similar and complex items. RFP at 25. Proposals were due October 17. The agency received five proposals by that date, including submissions by Shubhada and Titan. The agency determined that four proposals, including Shubhada's, which was also the lowest-priced proposal, did not include any information for review under the technical factor and thus were technically unacceptable. /1/ The agency determined that Titan's proposal was acceptable. The agency eliminated all but Titan's proposal from the competitive range, conducted discussions with Titan and, on December 13, awarded a contract to that firm. Subsequently, Shubhada protested to our Office, /2/ essentially alleging that its proposal was technically acceptable and should have been selected for award. The agency report on the protest states that Shubhada's proposal was technically unacceptable because it did not include the technical information required by the RFP. In response, Shubhada states that it had hand-delivered a proposal consisting of two large envelopes banded together, one of which contained a binder with all of the technical and past performance information required by the RFP. Comments at 2, Second Supplemental Comments at 1. Shubhada supports this statement with a copy of a receipt showing that a "bid package" was received by the agency prior to closing. Comments at 2, attach. 1, Receipt For Handcarried Offer. Both parties' related arguments largely are based on current recollections of events that occurred many months ago. For example, the agency's personnel recall that Shubhada submitted only one envelope. Supplemental Agency Submission, Affidavit of Bid Room Attendant (Aug. 18, 2003). The agency states that the envelope was not large enough to, and did not, contain a binder of past performance and technical information. Agency Supplemental Report at 2. Also, on October 21, 4 days after closing, Shubhada's representative called the agency; the agency's contracts specialist returned his calls. Agency Report, Tab 9, Conversation Record (Oct. 22, 2002). The contracts specialist states that Shubhada's representative asked to submit technical data to attach to Shubhada's proposal, but she told him that the agency would get back to him with a decision as to whether the submission of additional information would be permitted. Supplemental Agency Report, encl. 1, Affidavit of Contracts Specialist, at 1. Shubhada's representative states that he only inquired whether the contracts specialist had received Shubhada's proposal and whether she needed any additional information; according to Shubhada, the contracts specialist stated that she had received everything and did not need additional information. Second Supplemental Comments (Aug.