Oregon Potato Company, B-294839, December 27, 2004

B-294839 Dec 27, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Oregon Potato Company (OPC) protests the rejection of its offer under invitation No. 094E, issued by the Commodity Credit Corporation, Farm Service Agency, Kansas City Commodity Office, for dehydrated potato flakes for export to the nation of Moldova. OPC argues that the invitation failed to disclose a key factor necessary for the firm to intelligently prepare its offer. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-294839, Oregon Potato Company, December 27, 2004 Decision Matter of: Oregon Potato Company File: B-294839 Date: December 27, 2004 Richard A. Sargent for the protester. Michael Gurwitz, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest regarding procurement for supply of commodity for export overseas is sustained where the solicitation failed to advise offerors that an offer would not be considered if, in a separate procurement seeking bids to transport the commodity to the ultimate destination, the agency failed to receive a bid corresponding to an offeror's proposed delivery location. Without this information, offerors lacked sufficient information to prepare their offers intelligently and to compete on an equal basis. DECISION Oregon Potato Company (OPC) protests the rejection of its offer under invitation No. 094E, issued by the Commodity Credit Corporation, Farm Service Agency, Kansas City Commodity Office, for dehydrated potato flakes for export to the nation of Moldova. OPC argues that the invitation failed to disclose a key factor necessary for the firm to intelligently prepare its offer. We sustain the protest. The invitation, issued on September 3, 2004, called for a specified quantity of potato flakes divided between two shipping periods. With regard to delivery of the potato flakes by the offeror, the invitation stated that "[d]elivery will be either [free alongside steamer (f.a.s.)], intermodal plant, or intermodal bridge as specified in the contract." Invitation at 2. With regard to specific delivery locations, the invitation stated that offerors should submit prices for the potato flakes based on delivery by the offeror to any location listed on the agency's form KC-362, the offeror's plant location, or any of the nine plant locations already listed in the invitation. The form KC-362 is a list of U.S. ports of export and "U.S. intermodal points," which are plant locations and bridges identified by city and state. Offerors were advised that award would be made on the basis of "the total cost to the Government to deliver the product to the ultimate destination." Announcement DPP1 4.B. [1] In this regard, the agency, in a separate procurement action using the services of a freight forwarding agency, issued a solicitation seeking bids to transport the potato flakes from the United States to Moldova. The agency's intention was to add to an offeror's price for supply of the potato flakes, the price of shipping the potato flakes to Moldova from the delivery location specified by the offeror. Thus, the evaluated price would consist of the offeror's price plus the cost of transportation from the offeror's specified delivery location to Moldova. OPC submitted offers for both quantities sought, specifying the delivery location as f.a.s. Tacoma, Washington, one of the ports listed on the agency's form KC-362. Although the invitation invited offers for locations on the KC-362, and although f.a.s. Tacoma was a location on the KC-362, the agency in fact received no bids for transportation from Tacoma to Moldova under its freight services solicitation. [2] Because there was no transportation bid corresponding to OPC's proposed delivery location, the agency concluded that it could not calculate the cost of OPC's offer, and therefore did not consider the offer for award. The invitation nowhere stated that the lack of a corresponding transportation bid would render an offer ineligible for award. A solicitation must contain sufficient information to allow offerors to compete intelligently and on an equal basis. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. , B-246784.2, Aug. 24, 1992, 92-2 CPD 122 at 10. Offerors can compete on equal terms only if they know in advance the basis on which their proposals will be evaluated. Roth-Radcliff Co. Inc. , B-213872.2, June 1, 1984, 84-1 CPD 589 at 5. Here, in bidding f.a.s. Tacoma, OPC offered delivery of the requested commodity at a location listed in the KC-362, as specifically authorized by the terms of the invitation.