B-310600.3; B-310600.4, Al Qabandi United Company; American General Trading & Contracting--Costs, June 5, 2008

B-310600.3; B-310600.4, Al Qabandi United Company; American General Trading & Contracting--Costs, June 5, 2008 TITLE: B-310600.3; B-310600.4, Al Qabandi United Company; American General Trading & Contracting--Costs, June 5, 2008 BNUMBER: B-310600.3; B-310600.4 DATE: June 5, 2008 ************************************************************************************************************** B-310600.3; B-310600.4, Al Qabandi United Company; American General Trading & Contracting--Costs, June 5, 2008 Decision Matter of: Al Qabandi United Company; American General Trading & Contracting--Costs File: B-310600.3; B-310600.4 Date: June 5, 2008 Paul J. Seidman, Esq., and David J. Seidman, Esq., Seidman & Associates, for Al Qabandi United Company; Vonda K. Vandaveer, Esq., for American General Trading & Contracting, the protesters. Maj. Christina McCoy and Raymond M. Saunders, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Frank Maguire, Esq., David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Reimbursement of costs of filing and pursuing protests is recommended where a reasonable agency inquiry into initial protest allegations would have shown that agency had failed to conduct price realism evaluation required by solicitation, but agency delayed taking corrective action until after submission of the agency report. DECISION Al Qabandi United Company and American General Trading & Contracting (AGT) request that we recommend that they be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing their protests against the Department of the Army's award of a contract to International Link Trading, Establishment of Kuwait (ILTE), under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912D1-07-R-0047, for laundry services at military camps in Kuwait. We grant the requests. BACKGROUND The RFP provided for award of a fixed-price contract to furnish laundry services in Kuwait commencing on October 1, 2007 to the offeror with "the lowest realistically priced offer judged to have a `Responsible' or `Neutral' past performance rating." RFP, amend. 0001, at 19. With regard to price realism, the RFP specifically provided that an "[u]nrealistically low proposed price may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition." RFP, amend. 0001, at 23. Fifteen timely proposals were received in response to the solicitation; seven proposals were included in the competitive range for purposes of discussions. Based on the revised proposals subsequently received from the offerors, the Army determined that ILTE had submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer. Since ILTE's past performance was evaluated as "Neutral" (based on its lack of relevant past performance history), thus qualifying it for award under the terms of the solicitation, ILTE was awarded the contract on September 25. ILTE, however, did not commence work on October 1 as required under the solicitation. On October 9, Al Qabandi filed a protest with our Office challenging the award to ILTE on several grounds generally related to ILTE's alleged inability to meet the RFP's performance requirements, as allegedly shown by ILTE's failure to begin performance on October 1. Specifically, Al Qabandi asserted that: (1) the Army improperly relaxed the performance requirements after award by extending the October 1 start date, resulting in an improper modification outside the scope of the contract; (2) the Army lacked sufficient information to support its responsibility determination; (3) the Army failed to consult required information sources in making its responsibility determination; (4) the affirmative determination of responsibility was improper because ILTE lacked relevant past performance; (5) the award price was unrealistic; and (6) the affirmative determination of responsibility lacked a rational basis. Al Qabandi Protest at 3-6. On October 9, AGT likewise filed a protest (dated October 8) with our Office challenging the award to ILTE. AGT generally asserted that: (1) the Army's evaluation of ILTE's proposal was unreasonable as demonstrated by the fact that ILTE was unable to perform as required under the RFP; (2) the Army failed to make a proper responsibility determination; and (3) the Army did not provide AGT with an adequate debriefing in that it failed to furnish required information regarding the price evaluation.