Poly-Pacific Technologies, Inc., B-293925.2, December 20, 2004

B-293925.2 Dec 20, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Poly-Pacific Technologies, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. F42650-03-R-A111, issued by the Department of the Air Force for lease and recycling of abrasive blast media. Poly-Pacific argues that the agency improperly determined that its proposal was technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. View Decision B-293925.2, Poly-Pacific Technologies, Inc., December 20, 2004 Decision Matter of: Poly-Pacific Technologies, Inc. File: B-293925.2 Date: December 20, 2004 Chris Howard for the protester. James B. Howarth, Esq., and Eric Kattner, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly determined that protesters proposal was technically unacceptable is denied where the protester failed to adequately address technical deficiencies that the agency had brought to the protesters attention during multiple rounds of discussions. DECISION Poly-Pacific Technologies, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. F42650-03-R-A111, issued by the Department of the Air Force for lease and recycling of abrasive blast media. Poly-Pacific argues that the agency improperly determined that its proposal was technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on March 3, 2004, as a total small business set aside, and anticipated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for an 8-month base period followed by up to four 1-year options. The RFP sought proposals to lease blast media, such as plastic, aluminum oxide, glass, garnet, and other media blends, to Hill Air Force Base, Utah, for use as an abrasive in the removal of organic and other coatings from aircraft, components, and equipment. RFP, Statement of Work (SOW), at 1. After the material is used as an abrasive and is no longer usable for that purpose, it is deemed spent blast media (SBM) and the contractor is responsible for removing the SBM. Id. The RFP required offerors to propose a means of removing and recycling the SBM that meets U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that exclude such recycled products from the definition of solid waste. RFP at 23. During the course of the contract the contractor will retain legal title to the media, as well as liability for its handling and disposal. Id. The RFP technical requirements were comprised of two subfactors, recycling and material conformance. RFP at 40, 2.2.1. These technical subfactors required offerors to submit proposals detailing their approach to providing media and recycling SBM as set forth in the SOW. Id. Furthermore, the RFP advised offerors that compliance with all requirements in the RFP and SOW was mandatory, and that proposals which failed to meet those requirements could be rejected as technically unacceptable. RFP at 36, 4.1, and at 39, 1.1. The RFP stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror submitting a technically acceptable proposal and offering the lowest evaluated price. RFP at 39, 1.0. Poly-Pacific submitted a timely proposal on April 6. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Poly-Pacific Proposal. Poly-Pacific proposed to lease media to the agency and recycle the SBM at its facility in Ontario, California. Poly-Pacific stated that it would recycle SBM into plastic lumber, a process that involves mixing shredded high density polyethylene (HDPE) with Spent Blasting Media (SBM) and . . . an extruding process [that] produces plastic lumber which can be used in a number of approved means (above ground decking, rail fencing, general building material). Id. M, C, F. Following its initial technical evaluation of offerors proposals, the agency conducted discussions with Poly-Pacific and the other offeror whose proposal was in the competitive range. Contracting Officers Statement at 3. During the first round of discussions, the agency requested additional information regarding five areas in which it found Poly-Pacifics proposal technically unacceptable. AR, Tab 8, First Discussions Questions, at 1-2. Poly-Pacific provided written responses to the agencys request. AR, Tab 8, First Discussions Responses. Following its evaluation of the Poly-Pacific responses, the agency determined that there are still major substantive issues that must be resolved. AR, Tab 8, E-mail from Technical Evaluator to Contracting Officer, June 10, 2004. The agency conducted a second round of discussions with Poly-Pacific, requesting additional information that largely reiterated the agencys concerns from the first round of discussions. AR, Tab 8, Second Discussions Questions, at 1-2. Poly-Pacific provided written responses to the second round of discussions.