NABCO, Inc., B-293027; B-293027.2, January 15, 2004

NABCO, Inc., B-293027; B-293027.2, January 15, 2004 TITLE: NABCO, Inc., B-293027; B-293027.2, January 15, 2004 BNUMBER: B-293027; B-293027.2 DATE: January 15, 2004 ********************************************************************** NABCO, Inc., B-293027; B-293027.2, January 15, 2004 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: NABCO, Inc. File: B-293027; B-293027.2 Date: January 15, 2004 Ronald S. Perlman, Esq., and Michael B. Tuite, Esq., Buchanan Ingersoll, for the protester. John D. Pelligrin, Esq., for UXB International, Inc., an intervenor. Michael J. O*Farrell, Jr., Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Awardee*s proposed explosive ordinance disposal total containment vessel (TCV) is a commercial item, even though it is a modified version of an existing commercially available TCV, where the modification is minor and customarily available in the commercial marketplace. DECISION NABCO, Inc. protests the award of a contract to UXB International, Inc., issued by the Department of the Air Force under solicitation No. F13-DEA-32200100, for 15 explosive ordinance disposal total containment vessels (TCV). NABCO contends that UXB*s proposed TCV is not a commercial item and does not comply with certain solicitation requirements. We deny the protests. The TCV is a trailer-mounted vessel that permits the safe transport of terrorist devices out of populated areas to areas where the devices can be safely counter charged. The solicitation for TCVs was issued on September 9, 2003 as a *combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items.*[1] The solicitation specified that award would be made to the *responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government,* considering technical capability, price, and delivery schedule. Solicitation at 1‑3. The solicitation required that the proposed TCV meet certain physical and performance-based requirements. Among these requirements was that the proposed TCV was to be capable of operating in two separate modes: a *gas tight* mode capable of containing all gases generated from a detonation of no less than 3 pounds of C4 or equivalent explosives, and a *controlled vent* mode capable of containing a detonation of no less than 10 pounds of C4 or equivalent explosives. The TCV was also to contain drain and fill ports for decontamination, as well as sampling capability to enable monitoring and sample collection after detonation or during the treatment process. The TCV was to have an inside diameter of no less than 42 inches, an access door located on the side of the vessel for safely loading and unloading suspect devices, and a trailer to provide a stable platform. The TCV, trailer, and all accessories were not to exceed 6,000 pounds in weight. Delivery was required no later than May 15, 2004. Three offerors responded to the solicitation. UXB proposed a model *MECV-L,* which is a modified version of its model *MECV-5L* (one of two commercial lines of mobile explosive containment vessels UXB distributes[2]), with a reconfigured door to meet the requirements of the solicitation. NABCO and the other offeror also proposed TCVs from their commercial product lines. In evaluating offers, the agency did not affirmatively evaluate whether each proposed TCV was a commercial item; rather, the agency presumed that each of the offers was for a commercial item, based on its market research performed in advance of the solicitation (which included responses from both NABCO and UXB) and the fact that nothing in the proposals suggested the TCVs proposed were not commercial items. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 36-40, 67-68. All three offerors* proposals were found to be technically acceptable, but only NABCO*s and UXB*s proposals were found to meet the delivery date. Award was made to UXB because, all other factors being equal, its price of $2.7 million was lower than NABCO*s proposed $3.6 million price. Notice of award was provided to NABCO on October 2, 2003, and these protests followed.[3] NABCO first complains that UXB*s proposed TCV is not a commercial item.