B-297536, American Material Handling, Inc., January 30, 2006

B-297536 Jan 30, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights American Material Handling, Inc. (AMH) protests the award of a contract to JLG Industries under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-05-R-D134, issued by the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) for forklifts to be delivered to Iraq. AMH argues that its lower-priced proposal should have been selected for award. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297536, American Material Handling, Inc., January 30, 2006 Decision Matter of: American Material Handling, Inc. File: B-297536 Date: January 30, 2006 A. Sid Goss for the protester. Vera Meza, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In a negotiated procurement which provided for award on the basis of a price/technical tradeoff, protest challenging the selection of the higher-priced proposal is denied, where, consistent with the solicitation's evaluation factors, the source selection authority found the awardee's offer of a shorter delivery schedule to outweigh the protester's price advantage. DECISION American Material Handling, Inc. (AMH) protests the award of a contract to JLG Industries under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-05-R-D134, issued by the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) for forklifts to be delivered to Iraq. AMH argues that its lower-priced proposal should have been selected for award.[1] We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a 2-year, fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite'quantity (ID/IQ) contract for the purchase and delivery of tactical, variable reach, all-wheel drive, rough terrain forklifts to Iraq. RFP attach. 001, Specification. A quantity of 6 forklifts (to be ordered at the time of contract award) was identified as the guaranteed minimum quantity, and 46 forklifts as the maximum quantity. RFP at 6. The RFP provided for a two-phased evaluation of proposals. Offerors were informed that, under phase I, the firms' proposals would be evaluated on a pass/fail basis for compliance with the RFP's specifications. An acceptable proposal was defined as one –where there is essentially no doubt— that the offered forklift would –meet each of the specification requirements.— RFP at 68. Offerors were informed that those proposals found to be acceptable under the phase I evaluation would be qualitatively evaluated to determine which proposal was most advantageous under the following phase II evaluation factors: delivery, price, and small business participation. The delivery factor was stated to be more important than the price factor, and the price factor was stated to be more important than the small business participation factor. Offerors were informed that the basis for award would be a price/technical tradeoff which considered the –relative advantages, disadvantages, and risks of each proposal.— Id. With respect to the delivery factor, the RFP provided that the agency would evaluate the offeror's proposed single date for completion of delivery of the minimum guaranteed quantity to the [freight on board] Destination point in Iraq, Umm Qasr. The Delivery Area evaluation will assess the extent to which contract hardware deliveries . . . satisfy the objective delivery schedule for the guaranteed minimum quantity of Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract deliverables. The guaranteed minimum quantity is identified in the CLIN schedule. The Delivery Area will also assess the level of risk in achieving the objective delivery date. For the purpose of this RFP, the objective delivery date for the guaranteed minimum quantity is 180 days after receipt of order (DARO). The Delivery Area evaluation will be performed using the information provided in the Delivery Questionnaire and any other validated information gathered by the Government. Id. at 68-69. With respect to the small business participation factor, offerors were informed that the agency would evaluate –the percentage of total subcontracted dollars which the Offeror credibly proposes to subcontract to U.S. small business concerns.— Offerors were informed that this provision applied –to every offeror (U.S. and non-U.S.), regardless of size-status or location of its manufacturing facility or headquarters.— Id. at 69. TACOM received proposals from nine firms, including AMH and JLG, by the closing date for receipt of proposals. Four firms' offers, including those of AMH and JLG, were determined to be technically acceptable in the phase I evaluation. Discussions were conducted with the acceptable offerors, and revised proposals received.