B-296435.5; B-296435.10, Nu-Way, Inc., September 28, 2005

B-296435.5; B-296435.10, Nu-Way, Inc., September 28, 2005 TITLE: B-296435.5; B-296435.10, Nu-Way, Inc., September 28, 2005 BNUMBER: B-296435.5; B-296435.10 DATE: September 28, 2005 ********************************************************* B-296435.5; B-296435.10, Nu-Way, Inc., September 28, 2005 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: Nu-Way, Inc. File: B-296435.5; B-296435.10 Date: September 28, 2005 John Lukjanowicz, Esq., Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker LLP, for the protester. Harold M. Nelson, Big Sky Mobile Catering, an intervenor. Byron W. Waters, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's technical proposal as unacceptable under evaluation factor relating to proposed equipment is denied where the protester's proposal was ambiguous regarding whether the offered equipment met one of the material requirements in the solicitation. 2. Protest alleging that, in its evaluation of the protester's proposal, the agency unreasonably ignored information that was "too close at hand" (but not contained in the protester's proposal) is denied where the information in question bears on whether the protester's proposed equipment satisfied the technical requirements of the solicitation, and thus by nature could vary in response to the individual solicitation. 3. Protest that agency should have engaged in clarifications with protester to resolve material ambiguity in its proposal is denied since any such exchange would have constituted discussions, not clarifications, and agency generally has no obligation to hold discussions where, as here, it put offerors on notice of its intent to make award on the basis of initial proposals. DECISION Nu-Way, Inc. protests the decision by the National Interagency Fire Center, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, not to award Nu-Way a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. 49-05-07 for mobile food services. Nu-Way argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals, including the evaluation of its technical proposal, was improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on February 9, 2005, contemplated multiple awards of fixed-price requirements contracts for a base year and four 1-year options. The successful contractors under the RFP would be required to provide hot and cold meals and various supplemental items at 27 field locations (referred to as designated dispatch points, or DDPs) during wildland fires and other types of activities throughout the contiguous western United States and Alaska by means of mobile food service units (MFSU). The solicitation permitted offerors to propose for multiple DDPs, but contemplated the award of one contract for each location. In addition to price, the solicitation identified the following technical evaluation factors in descending order of importance: proposed equipment, past performance, experience, and technical approach. The RFP informed offerors that the technical factors, when combined, were approximately equal in importance to price. Contract awards were to be made to the offerors submitting the proposals determined to meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation and to be the most advantageous (i.e., "best value") to the government. Relevant to the protest here, the RFP also stated that contract awards might be made without discussions. RFP sect. M.2, at 105. The RFP contained detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals, and required that the offerors' proposals consist of two parts--a technical proposal and a business/price proposal. Offerors were instructed that the technical proposals would be used to determine, among other things, whether the proposals met the requirements of the RFP. In this regard, the RFP required that offerors "clearly and concisely provide" written specifications and drawings of the MFSU offered, "indicating equipment location, traffic flow, layout, size, and capacity of the unit." RFP sect. L.6, at 101. The RFP also established minimum equipment requirements for an MFSU, and required offerors to complete an equipment requirements checklist for each unit offered. RFP sect. C.3, at 21-27; exh. M.2, at 112-18. The solicitation stated that the equipment requirements would be evaluated on a pass/fail basis, and that "any unit that fails to meet any of these minimum requirements will be unacceptable and may not be considered any further." RFP, exh.