B-310093, Charles Kendall & Partners, Ltd., November 26, 2007

B-310093 Nov 26, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Charles Kendall & Partners, Ltd. (CKP) protests the award of a contract to Polaris Sales, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) NO. W56HZV-07-R-G093, issued by the United States Army Tank-Automotive Armaments Life Cycle Management Command for all terrain vehicles (ATVs) and ATV trailers, along with spare parts and services, for use by security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. The protest is denied. View Decision B-310093, Charles Kendall & Partners, Ltd., November 26, 2007 Decision Matter of: Charles Kendall & Partners, Ltd. File: B-310093 Date: November 26, 2007 Hugh Mainwaring, Charles Kendall & Partners, Ltd., Inc., for the protester. Roger D. Waldron, Esq., Mayer Brown LLP, for Polaris Sales, Inc., an intervenor. Maj. Walter R. Dukes, and Arthur M. Bolely, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Ralph O. White, 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/delivery/small business participation tradeoff, protest challenging the selection of the high-priced proposal is denied, where, consistent with the solicitation's evaluation factors, the source selection authority considered the awardee's offer of a shorter delivery schedule, and concluded that faster deliveries outweighed the protester's price advantage; this kind of conclusion is well within the discretion given selection officials to make tradeoff decisions. DECISION Charles Kendall & Partners, Ltd. (CKP) protests the award of a contract to Polaris Sales, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) NO. W56HZV-07-R-G093, issued by the United States Army Tank-Automotive Armaments Life Cycle Management Command for all terrain vehicles (ATVs) and ATV trailers, along with spare parts and services, for use by security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. The protest is denied. The RFP provided for the award of a 3-year requirements contract. The RFP included estimated quantities for the ATVs and trailers for each of the 3 years. The RFP provided for a two-phased evaluation process. Offerors were informed that, under phase I, the firms' proposals would be evaluated on an acceptable/not acceptable basis for compliance with the RFP's specifications. An acceptable proposal was defined as one –where there is essentially no doubt— that the offered ATVs and trailers would –meet each of the specification requirements.— RFP para. M.2.1. Offerors were informed that those proposals found to be acceptable would be evaluated using a tradeoff process to determine which proposal is most advantageous under the following phase II evaluation factors: delivery, small business participation and price. The delivery factor was more important than price, and price was more important than small business participation. With respect to the delivery factor, the RFP provided that the agency would evaluate on the basis of the dates of the offeror's proposed Days After Receipt of Order (DARO) for completion of deliveries at FOB Origin and to the final FOB Destination point in Umm Qasr, Iraq of the government's total estimated initial order of 596 ATVs and 596 ATV trailers. The RFP further stated that the delivery evaluation would assess the extent to which the deliveries would satisfy the RFP's objective delivery schedules for FOB Origin and for FOB Destination, as well as the level of risk associated with the proposed delivery schedule. For purposes of this RFP, the government's objective delivery dates for the estimated initial order quantity of ATVs and ATV trailers, for both FOB Origin and FOB Destination, were 210 DARO. Offerors were informed that the basis for award would be a price/technical tradeoff taking into consideration the –relative advantages, disadvantages, and risks of each proposal.— RFP para. M.2.2. Seven proposals were received, including those from CKP and Polaris, by the closing date for receipt of proposals. After discussions, five firms' offers, including those of CKP and Polaris, were determined to be technically acceptable in the phase I evaluation. After completion of evaluation under phase II, the source selection authority (SSA) concluded that the award decision came down to a choice between the proposal of CKP, which offered the lowest evaluated price, and Polaris, which offered the best delivery schedule with a very low risk rating. CKP's and Polaris' final revised proposals were evaluated under phase II as follows: Offeror (with delivery terms offered in DARO) Delivery Rating/Risk Price Sm. Bus.