B-299624, Tennier Industries, Inc., July 12, 2007
Case: B-299624
Agency:
Protester: B
Date: 2007-07-12
Denied
B-299624
Jul 12, 2007
Jump To
VIEW DECISION
DOWNLOADS
RELATED PAGES
GAO CONTACTS
Highlights
Tennier Industries, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W91CRB-07-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Army for fire resistant clothing. Tennier asserts that various aspects of the solicitation are ambiguous and need to be clarified, or are otherwise deficient and need to be corrected.
We deny the protest.
View Decision
B-299624, Tennier Industries, Inc., July 12, 2007
Decision
Matter of: Tennier Industries, Inc.
File: B-299624
Date: July 12, 2007
Ruth E. Ganister, Esq., Rosenthal and Ganister, for the protester.
Maj. Walter R. Dukes, and Cathleen Perry, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency.
Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest challenging numerous aspects of solicitation as ambiguous or otherwise deficient is denied where solicitation, read as a whole, is understandable, and provides a reasonable basis for offerors to intelligently prepare proposals.
DECISION
Tennier Industries, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W91CRB-07-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Army for fire resistant clothing. Tennier asserts that various aspects of the solicitation are ambiguous and need to be clarified, or are otherwise deficient and need to be corrected.
We deny the protest.
The RFP contemplates the award of one or more fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite'quantity (ID/IQ) contracts to provide fire resistant equipment ensembles (FREE). A FREE is comprised of various clothing components, including t'shirts, boxer briefs, sports bras, base layer clothing, mid-weight clothing, a wind resistant jacket and pant, an insulated softshell jacket, pant and vest, a hardshell jacket and pant, socks, balaclavas, cold weather gloves and a rigger belt. RFP at 23. The RFP advises prospective offerors that they may either propose all articles--a FREE system--or one or more individual system components. Id. at 22. The agency will order a minimum quantity of 50 units (whether components or FREE systems) and a maximum quantity of 300,000 units over a contract period of 5 years. Id. at 6-8.
Awards are to be made to those firms offering the top performing products considering the following factors (in descending order of importance): technical, management, past and present performance, and price. Id. at 33. The RFP envisions a downselection process in three phases. During phase 1, offerors will submit proposals and product samples that will be evaluated for award purposes; the agency anticipates awarding numerous initial contracts based on its phase 1 evaluation. (The product samples called for under phase 1 are to include one set of the proposed product for each size that the offeror manufactures, along with fabric samples that have not been fabricated into completed garments.) During phase 2, the government will issue delivery orders to the awardees for 50 units of their system or components. These 50 units will be further evaluated for various aspects of suitability (for example, fit/sizing, donning and doffing ease, compatibility with mission relevant equipment, and burn injury prediction). At the conclusion of phase 2, the agency will select two FREE systems--either complete systems or components knitted into a system by the agency--for participation in phase 3. RFP at 32. During phase 3, the agency will order an additional 500 units that will be evaluated by prospective users to verify durability, mission compatibility and soldier preference. At the conclusion of phase 3, the agency will select a single FREE system to meet its needs over a 5'year period. RFP at 32.
Tennier challenges numerous terms of the RFP. As a general rule, solicitations must contain sufficient information to allow offerors to compete intelligently and on an equal basis. However, there is no legal requirement that a solicitation contain such detail as to completely eliminate all risk or remove all uncertainty from the mind of every prospective offeror. Braswell Servs. Group, Inc., B-276694, July 15, 1997, 97'2 CPD para. 18 at 2-3. In interpreting solicitation terms, we will read the solicitation as a whole and in a manner that gives effect to all of its provisions. AMS Group, B'299369, Apr. 12, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 72 at 3. We have considered each of Tennier's arguments and find that they are without merit. We discuss Tennier's primary arguments below.
Tennier asserts that, since the RFP provides for multiple awards, it is unclear whether the minimum and maximum quantities will be ordered from each awardee or whether the total quantity will be split among all awardees. This assertion is without merit. We think it is sufficiently clear, as explained above, what quantities in the RFP will be ordered from each awardee.
Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...