B-400177; B-400177.2, ECI Defense Group, July 25, 2008

B-400177; B-400177.2, ECI Defense Group, July 25, 2008 TITLE: B-400177; B-400177.2, ECI Defense Group, July 25, 2008 BNUMBER: B-400177; B-400177.2 DATE: July 25, 2008 ****************************************************** B-400177; B-400177.2, ECI Defense Group, July 25, 2008 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: ECI Defense Group File: B-400177; B-400177.2 Date: July 25, 2008 Howell Roger Riggs, Esq., Timothy P. Pittman, Esq., and Kimberly A. Ford, Esq., Dick Riggs Miller LLP, for the protester. Elan D. Taylor, Esq., and Benjamin G. Perkins, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Offeror's failure to acknowledge a material amendment to a request for proposals which significantly altered the government's guaranteed minimum quantity renders the proposal unacceptable. 2. Protester is not an interested party to maintain protest challenging proposal evaluation where it did not acknowledge material amendment; protester would be ineligible for award even if protest of evaluation were sustained. DECISION ECI Defense Group protests the award of a contract to Thomas Instrument under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPM4A7-07-R-1322, issued by the Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR), Defense Logistics Agency, for aircraft actuator screwshaft assemblies. ECI argues that the agency's evaluation of offerors' proposals was improper. We dismiss the protest on the basis that the protester is not an interested party to challenge the award to Thomas Instrument. The RFP, issued on August 30, 2007, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract for a base year and four 1-year options. The solicitation informed offerors of the agency's estimated quantity (252), guaranteed minimum quantity (63), minimum delivery order quantity (63), maximum delivery order quantity (252), and maximum quantity (504) for the base year, as well as similar estimated, minimum delivery order, maximum delivery order, and maximum quantities for the option periods. The RFP identified two evaluation factors of equal importance: price (to be based on the solicitation's estimated quantities) and past performance. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the "best value" to the government, all factors considered. RFP at 2, 20, 24-25. Also relevant to the protest here, the RFP established a delivery schedule of 150 days after receipt of order for the first article requirement, and 200 days after first article approval for production quantities.[1] Id. at 3. ECI submitted its proposal by the December 17 closing date. As part of its proposal, ECI both requested a waiver of the first article requirement (based upon prior approval), and stated that it would make deliveries 372 days after receipt of order. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, ECI Proposal, Nov. 26, 2007, at 1, 5. DSCR subsequently granted ECI's first article waiver request. Id., Tab 15, DSCR Email to ECI, Jan. 17, 2008, at 1. On March 14, 2008, ECI modified its proposal by clarifying its pricing and by changing its delivery schedule to 386 days after receipt of order.[2] Id., Tab 9, ECI Email to DSCR, Mar. 14, 2008, at 3. On April 22, by amendment No. 0005, the agency changed the base year's guaranteed minimum quantity from 63 to 250 assemblies (in comparison to the unchanged estimated quantity of 252 units) and established a revised closing date of April 29. The amendment also included a pricing table by which offerors could revise their prices. RFP amend. 5, at 1-2. ECI did not submit amendment No. 0005, and thereby either modify or confirm its pricing in light of the change to the base year's guaranteed minimum quantity, by the April 29 closing date. Instead, ECI signed and returned amendment No. 0005 on April 30 without modifying its pricing. AR, Tab 13, ECI amend. 5, Apr. 30, 2008. The agency evaluated the proposals of ECI, Thomas Instrument, and a third offeror. DSCR determined that ECI was ineligible for award because the firm had failed to respond to amendment 0005 in a timely manner. AR, Tab 16, DSCR Evaluation Report, at 2. The agency also found ECI's proposal to be "non-responsive"[3] for failing to comply with the RFP's delivery schedule: ECI had proposed deliveries 386 days after receipt of an order while, in light of the waiver of the first article requirement, the RFP in effect required ECI to make deliveries 200 days after receipt of an order. Id.