B-297807, Al Long Ford, April 12, 2006

B-297807 Apr 12, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Al Long Ford (ALF) protests the rejection of its offer and the award of a contract to American Equipment Company, Inc. (AMECO) under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-05-R-D117, issued by the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) for light utility trucks and accompanying spare parts and manuals. The protester argues that its proposal represented a better value to the government than AMECO's because it offered a substantially shorter delivery schedule. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-297807, Al Long Ford, April 12, 2006 Decision Matter of: Al Long Ford File: B-297807 Date: April 12, 2006 Tarik S. Daoud for the protester. William A. Roberts III, Esq., Richard B. O'Keeffe, Jr., Esq., and Antonella Karlin, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, for American Equipment Company, Inc., the intervenor. Vera Meza, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where, after discussions had concluded, agency identified concerns pertaining to the achievability of protester's proposed delivery schedule that should have been apparent to the agency prior to discussions, discussions should have been reopened since proposed delivery schedule was an area that had to be addressed in order for the protester to be in line for award. DECISION Al Long Ford (ALF) protests the rejection of its offer and the award of a contract to American Equipment Company, Inc. (AMECO) under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-05-R-D117, issued by the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) for light utility trucks and accompanying spare parts and manuals. The protester argues that its proposal represented a better value to the government than AMECO's because it offered a substantially shorter delivery schedule. We sustain the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a 2-year, fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for a minimum quantity of 500 and a maximum quantity of 6,000 light utility trucks to be delivered to Iraq. Offerors were requested to furnish separate unit prices for the guaranteed minimum number of trucks, trucks in excess of the minimum quantity ordered during the first year, and trucks ordered during the second year.[1] The solicitation advised offerors that TACOM considered the requirement to be urgent, and that timely delivery and performance were essential. RFP at 5. The RFP provided for a two-step evaluation process. During Phase I, offerors' technical proposals were to be evaluated on an acceptable/not acceptable basis, with only those proposals found acceptable advancing to Phase II. During Phase II, proposals were to be evaluated under the factors of delivery, small business participation, and price to determine which proposal represented the best value to the government. The solicitation advised offerors that in the tradeoff determination, delivery was more important than price, which was in turn more important than small business participation. With respect to delivery, section M of the RFP advised offerors that their offers would be evaluated on the basis of a single date for completion of delivery of the guaranteed minimum quantity to the destination point in Iraq. Section M further advised that the –objective delivery date— for the guaranteed quantity was 120 days after receipt of order (DARO) and that proposals would be evaluated both to assess the extent to which the objective delivery schedule was satisfied and the level of risk in meeting the objective delivery date. The solicitation also furnished the following guidance regarding delivery in section I, under the clause entitled –Delivery Schedule For Delivery Orders—: Proposing an accelerated delivery schedule will not prejudice your offer. However, if you propose a delivery schedule longer than the schedule listed above [which identified the objective delivery date for the minimum quantity as 120 DARO], your offer may be determined unacceptable for award. RFP amend. 5, at 14. With respect to the small business participation factor, section M advised offerors that their proposals would be evaluated –based upon the risk and extent of the Offeror credibly achieving the Government's goals for U.S. small business concern participation.— RFP at 68. The RFP defined the –goals for evaluation— as small business concern participation (including all subcategories of small business concerns) of 10 percent or more and U.S. small disadvantaged business concern participation of 2.2 percent or more.