American Ordnance, LLC, B-292847; B-292847.2; B-292847.3, December 5, 2003

American Ordnance, LLC, B-292847; B-292847.2; B-292847.3, December 5, 2003 TITLE: American Ordnance, LLC, B-292847; B-292847.2; B-292847.3, December 5, 2003 BNUMBER: B-292847; B-292847.2; B-292847.3 DATE: December 5, 2003 ********************************************************************** American Ordnance, LLC, B-292847; B-292847.2; B-292847.3, December 5, 2003 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: American Ordnance, LLC File: B-292847; B-292847.2; B-292847.3 Date: December 5, 2003 Richard B. Oliver, Esq., and Gregory Murphy, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge, for the protester. James J. McCullough, Esq., and Steven A. Alerding, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for AMTEC Corp., an intervenor. Joshua Kranzberg, Esq., and John W. Seeck, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably assessed weaknesses against protester*s proposal where proposal failed to include information required by the solicitation. 2. Agency was not required to discuss weaknesses in protester*s proposal that did not make the proposal unacceptable or prevent protester from having a reasonable opportunity for award. DECISION American Ordnance, LLC (AO) protests the award of a contract to AMTEC Corp. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAA09-02-R-0064, issued by the Department of the Army for a contractor to load, assemble and pack charges for TNT demolition blocks. AO challenges several aspects of the evaluation. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for a *best value* award based on an evaluation of three factors--manufacturing plan, past performance and small business utilization--and price. The manufacturing plan factor was comprised of three subfactors--quality management system, essential processes and procedures, and essential skills--and the small business utilization factor was comprised of two subfactors--proposed small business utilization and past small business utilization. The manufacturing plan factor was significantly more important than the other factors, the small business utilization factor was less important than past performance or price, and the non‑price factors combined were more important than price. Four offerors responded to the RFP, including AO and AMTEC. The Army evaluated the proposals, held discussions and requested, received and evaluated final proposal revisions (FPR). AO*s proposal was rated good overall under the manufacturing plan factor, with ratings of excellent under the quality management system and essential skills subfactors and good under the essential processes and procedures subfactor; good overall under the small business utilization factor; and excellent under the past performance factor. AMTEC*s proposal was rated excellent under every factor and subfactor. AO*s offered price was [DELETED], and AMTEC*s $44,346,260. The source selection authority (SSA) reviewed the evaluation results and selected AMTEC*s proposal as offering the best value to the government. AO protests the agency*s evaluation of its and AMTEC*s proposals on several bases. In reviewing a protest against an agency*s proposal evaluation, our role is limited to ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and with applicable statutes and regulations. National Toxicology Labs, Inc., B-281074.2, Jan. 11, 1999, 99-1 CPD P: 5 at 3. We have reviewed the record and find all of AO*s arguments to be without merit. We discuss its primary arguments below. AO EVALUATION Manufacturing Plan The Army identified six weaknesses in AO*s proposal under the essential processes and procedures subfactor, under which AO*s proposal was rated good. Five of those weaknesses--[DELETED]; it did not allow sufficient time to account for unexpected problems; it proposed to add two new machine presses after first article testing was completed; and it proposed to inspect and test tooling held in storage and replace such tooling as necessary--reflected the Army*s concern that AO would experience delays that would affect the first article or delivery schedule. The sixth weakness the agency identified was AO*s failure to provide sufficient details regarding a specific gravity test that offerors were required to perform on the ammunition blocks. AO maintains that it was unreasonable for the Army to assess weaknesses against its proposal for not including evidence [DELETED].