B-299144, B&S Transport, Inc., January 22, 2007

B-299144 Jan 22, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights B&S Transport, Inc., a small business, protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Supply Center Columbus, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP0700-06-R-7022 to implement DLA's Tire Privatization Initiative (TPI). B&S argues that there was no reasonable basis for the evaluation of its proposal as unsatisfactory and that it was improper for the agency to remove B&S's proposal from the competitive range. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299144, B&S Transport, Inc., January 22, 2007 Decision Matter of: B&S Transport, Inc. File: B-299144 Date: January 22, 2007 Alani Golanski, Esq., Law Office of Alani Golanski, for the protester. Richard D. Ferguson, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest against elimination of protester's proposal from competitive range is denied where record supports the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of protester's proposal as unsatisfactory and not capable of being made acceptable without major revisions. DECISION B&S Transport, Inc., a small business, protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Supply Center Columbus, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP0700-06-R-7022 to implement DLA's Tire Privatization Initiative (TPI). B&S argues that there was no reasonable basis for the evaluation of its proposal as unsatisfactory and that it was improper for the agency to remove B&S's proposal from the competitive range. We deny the protest.[1] DLA issued the RFP on July 10, 2006, seeking a single contractor to supply tires for all armor/tactical vehicles, as well as for other vehicles and equipment, worldwide, and to provide complete tire supply-chain management. The RFP anticipated award of a fixed-price,[2] indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a 5-year base period with a 5-year option period. The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of four factors: technical, socioeconomic program utilization, Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Act entity utilization, and price.[3] Under the technical evaluation factor, the RFP established three subfactors--management approach, operational approach, and past performance--and provided that a rating of –Unacceptable— for any of these technical subfactors would render the entire proposal unacceptable. The RFP also specified that proposals were expected to –demonstrate[] a thorough understanding of the scope and complexity of the work and the ability to successfully perform the work.— RFP at 65-66. On or before the closing date, three offerors, including B&S, submitted proposals; thereafter, each offeror provided video proposal presentations. The RFP limited technical proposals to 75 pages; B&S's technical proposal was less than 35 pages. The RFP also limited video presentations to 2 hours; B&S's video presentation was approximately 6 minutes--more than half of which consisted of archival footage of the 1968 Olympic gold medal boxing victory of its corporate founder and president. Agency Report (AR), Tab 12a, DVD of B&S Video Presentation. After reviewing proposals, the source selection evaluation board (SSEB) rated B&S's technical proposal as –Unsatisfactory (B)—[4] under both the management approach and operational approach sub-factors,[5] and –Unsatisfactory (B)— overall. AR, Tab 17, Contracting Officer Assessment Slides, at 24. Specifically, the agency found that B&S's proposal failed to comply with, or even address, multiple RFP requirements regarding its proposed management approach, including: providing an organizational structure that identified the management and oversight responsibilities of the offeror and its proposed subcontractors; identification of the responsibilities of its proposed key personnel; and providing information regarding its proposed management approach to monitoring performance levels or adjusting to changing demands.[6] Contracting Officer's Statement at 5; RFP at 39-41; Technical Evaluation Team (TET) Report at 18-22.