Poly-Pacific Technologies, Inc., B-293925.3, May 16, 2005

B-293925.3 May 16, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Poly-Pacific Technologies, Inc. protests the award of a contract to U.S. Technology Corporation (UST) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F42650-03-R-A111, issued by the Department of the Air Force for leasing and recycling of abrasive blast media. Poly-Pacific argues that the agency improperly determined that UST's proposal was technically acceptable. We deny the protest. View Decision B-293925.3, Poly-Pacific Technologies, Inc., May 16, 2005 Decision Matter of: Poly-Pacific Technologies, Inc. File: B-293925.3 Date: May 16, 2005 Ron Ward 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 challenging agency's award of a contract is denied where agency reasonably evaluated awardee's technical proposal to provide a product that complies with solicitation requirements. Protester's interpretation of the solicitation as prohibiting awardee's proposed product does not appear reasonable; at most, the protester's interpretation suggests a patent ambiguity in the solicitation which cannot be protested after award. DECISION Poly-Pacific Technologies, Inc. protests the award of a contract to U.S. Technology Corporation (UST) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F42650-03-R-A111, issued by the Department of the Air Force for leasing and recycling of abrasive blast media. Poly-Pacific argues that the agency improperly determined that UST's proposal was technically acceptable. 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 option periods. 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 it. Id. at 2. The RFP required offerors to propose a means of removing and recycling the SBM that meets Environmental Protection Agency regulations that exclude such recycled products from the definition of "solid waste." RFP at 37. During the course of the contract the contractor retains legal title to the blast media, as well as liability for its handling and disposal. Id. Prior to award, Poly-Pacific's proposal was eliminated from award consideration based on the agency's determination that its proposal was technically unacceptable. Poly-Pacific subsequently filed a protest challenging the elimination of its proposal. Poly-Pacific Techs., Inc. , B-293925.2, Dec. 20, 2004, 2004 CPD 250. We denied the protest, concluding that the agency reasonably evaluated Poly-Pacific's proposal. Id. At the time of our decision, the agency had not yet made the award to UST. The agency subsequently awarded the contract to UST on March 16, 2005, and Poly-Pacific's protest of the award to UST followed. DISCUSSION Poly-Pacific primarily contends that the agency unfairly evaluated the offerors' proposals because the agency determined that Poly-Pacific's proposal was technically unacceptable based on its alleged failure to meet one of the RFP requirements for recycled materials made from SBM, whereas UST's proposal was found to comply with the requirement. [1] The RFP stated that offerors' proposals must demonstrate that the recycled SBM product would not be "applied to the land," which was explained in the RFP as follows: The products of the recycling process shall be completely described and documented. They shall meet the criteria at 40 CFR 261.2(e)(2) as follows. (i) Recycled products shall not be "Applied to the Land." Specifically, Hill AFB interprets "applied to the land" to mean without limitation such items as fence posts, blocks or concrete block like products or other items that are used underground and/or that are used in contact with the earth. The offeror shall accept this interpretation and shall not propose or use recycling processes that produce such items. RFP at 37, j. UST proposed to produce a "SEALTECH Block," which is a "Split Face Block," made from "SBM having a toxic." Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, UST Proposal, at 135. UST stated that its products "are not used in foundation walls or retaining walls due to their higher cost and open face that cannot be sealed." Id.