B-310535, Utility Tool & Trailer, Inc., January 3, 2008

B-310535 Jan 03, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Utility Tool & Trailer, Inc. (UTT) protests the award of a requirements-type contract to Schutt Industries, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-07-R-G094, issued by the United States Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) for 5-ton dual axle trailers. UTT argues that the agency abandoned the stated evaluation criteria (and made an unreasonable best value decision) when it failed to select UTT's higher-priced proposal offering shorter delivery times and applied unreasonable calculations for freight costs to portions of its proposals. We deny the protest. View Decision B-310535, Utility Tool & Trailer, Inc., January 3, 2008 Decision Matter of: Utility Tool & Trailer, Inc. File: B-310535 Date: January 3, 2008 Joe Weiland, Utility Tool & Trailer, Inc., for the protester. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Esq., and Christopher Van der Waerden, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, 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 Protest challenging an agency's selection of an offeror with lower-rated delivery schedule and lower-priced proposal is denied where the agency reasonably decided that the price premium involved in selecting the protester's higher-priced proposal to obtain the benefit of that proposal's slightly more favorable delivery schedule was not justified. DECISION Utility Tool & Trailer, Inc. (UTT) protests the award of a requirements-type contract to Schutt Industries, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-07-R-G094, issued by the United States Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) for 5'ton dual axle trailers. UTT argues that the agency abandoned the stated evaluation criteria (and made an unreasonable best value decision) when it failed to select UTT's higher-priced proposal offering shorter delivery times and applied unreasonable calculations for freight costs to portions of its proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on April 13, 2007, provided for the award of a 3-year requirements contract for delivery of 5-ton dual-axle trailers for use in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for potential foreign military sales. The RFP included an estimated first-year quantity of 75 trailers destined for Afghanistan (to be priced FOB Origin) and 6 trailers destined for Iraq (to be priced FOB Destination). The RFP also included an estimated second-year quantity of 33 trailers (FOB Origin) and 6 trailers (FOB Destination), and an estimated third-year quantity of 11 trailers (FOB Origin) and 6 trailers (FOB Destination). The RFP provided for a two-phased evaluation process. Under phase I, proposals were to be evaluated as either acceptable, or not acceptable, based on the proposal's compliance with the terms of the RFP. An acceptable proposal was defined as one –where there is essentially no doubt— that the offered trailers would –meet each of the specification requirements.— RFP at 73. Under phase II, the proposals found to be acceptable were to be evaluated using a tradeoff procedure considering the evaluation factors of delivery, small business participation and price. The RFP explained that the delivery factor would be more important than price, and price would be more important than small business participation. RFP at 74. With respect to the delivery factor, the RFP provided that the agency would evaluate on the basis of the offeror's proposed Days After Receipt of Order (DARO) for deliveries FOB Origin, and the proposed DARO for deliveries FOB Destination (to Umm Qasr, Iraq). The evaluation of the delivery factor was limited to an analysis of the government's total estimated initial order of 81 trailers (75 of which were FOB Origin, for use in Afghanistan, and 6 of which were FOB Destination, for use in Iraq). RFP at 74. 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 FOB Destination (which were set forth in the RFP at 74), as well as the level of risk associated with the proposed delivery schedule. Under the guaranteed shipping characteristics, offerors were required to provide, among other things, the size and weight of shipping containers and the size and type of shipping trailers. RFP para. K.2. The RFP provided that the total evaluated price would include the sum of all the hardware (and miscellaneous parts) identified in section B of the RFP, and transportation costs, as determined by the TACOM Transportation Office, for all FOB Origin items. RFP para. M.2.2.3. The RFP also included a detailed explanation of the way in which it would calculate the transportation costs for FOB Origin items.