B-310329, Blane International Group, Inc., December 13, 2007

B-310329 Dec 13, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Blane International Group, Inc. protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to GSS, Inc., an affiliate of Sporting Supplies International (SSI), under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-07R-0104, for ammunition. Blane primarily asserts that the agency failed to engage in meaningful discussions. We deny the protest. View Decision B-310329, Blane International Group, Inc., December 13, 2007 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Blane International Group, Inc. File: B-310329 Date: December 13, 2007 Jeffrey N. Schwartz, Esq., Lawrence E. Newlin & Associates, PC, for the protester. Vera Meza, Esq., and Bradley J. Crosson, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Contracting agency engaged in meaningful discussions regarding protester's delivery plan, such that the protester should have been aware of agency's concerns, where it informed protester that its delivery plan was difficult to read and follow. DECISION Blane International Group, Inc. protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to GSS, Inc., an affiliate of Sporting Supplies International (SSI), under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-07R-0104, for ammunition. Blane primarily asserts that the agency failed to engage in meaningful discussions. We deny the protest. On June 28, 2007, the Army issued the solicitation for nonstandard ammunition for the Afghanistan National Security Forces and the Government of Iraq. The solicitation was structured for multiple awards: one for the Afghanistan requirement, and two for the Iraq requirement (–Iraq A— and –Iraq B—). RFP at 49. Award was to be made to the firm or firms submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer, with technical acceptability to be evaluated based on three subfactors: delivery plan, shipping plan, and quality assurance plan. RFP at 42. The solicitation stated that the –Technical Subfactors will be evaluated on a Go/No Go Basis; and only contractors who receive a Go on all Sub'factors under the Technical Factor will be evaluated on Price.— Id. The Army received 7 proposals for the Afghanistan requirement and 10 for the Iraq requirement by the August 1 closing date. The Army established two competitive ranges--one for each requirement--and opened discussions. Blane, whose proposals were included in the competitive range for both requirements, received a letter from the agency outlining various issues with its proposals, and requesting that it respond to the issues with a detailed and complete answer. Regarding the Iraq requirement, the letter stated that –[[t]he Delivery Plan is difficult to read/follow. Please identify producers along with suppliers,— and that –[c]ommitment letters do not list all of the requested items. Provide all commitment letters from all producers.— Agency Report (AR), Tab 16, at 1. On August 15, Blane responded to the discussion letter by modifying its delivery plan and providing commitment letters from suppliers. AR, Tab 23. Over the next several days, Blane responded to inquiries regarding its financial capability, which, on August 27, resulted in the Defense Contract Management Agency's (DCMA) rating Blane a low financial risk. On August 31, the agency notified Blane that its offer for the Iraq B requirement, priced at $21,296,000, had been determined to be technically unacceptable for a –no go— finding under the delivery plan technical subfactor, and that award had been made to GSS at a price of $25,977,161. Following a debriefing, Blane filed this protest, challenging the award of the Iraq B requirement. Blane challenges the award on a number of grounds. We find all of Blane's arguments to be without merit; we discuss several of these arguments below. DISCUSSIONS Blane primarily asserts that the discussion letter it received did not constitute meaningful discussions because it failed to provide sufficient information to enable Blane to address its delivery plan deficiencies.[1] Discussions, when conducted, must be meaningful, that is, they may not be misleading and must identify proposal deficiencies and significant weaknesses that could reasonably be addressed in a manner to materially enhance the offeror's potential for receiving award. PAI Corp., B'298349, Aug. 18, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 124 at 8. However, agencies are not required to –spoon feed— an offeror during discussions; they need only lead offerors into the areas of their proposal that require amplification. LaBarge Elecs., B'266210, Feb. 9, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 58 at 6. The discussions here were unobjectionable.