B-400255, Murray-Benjamin Electric Company, L.P., August 7, 2008

B-400255 Aug 07, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Murray-Benjamin Electric Company, L.P. (MBE), a small business, protests the award of a contract to Allied Wire & Cable Inc. by Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR) under request for proposals (RFP) No. EP2466-08 for coaxial cable. MBE argues that the contracting officer (CO) erred in calculating MBE's price by using a different quantity of cable from the amount specified in the RFP. We deny the protest. View Decision B-400255, Murray-Benjamin Electric Company, L.P., August 7, 2008 Decision Matter of: Murray-Benjamin Electric Company, L.P. File: B-400255 Date: August 7, 2008 Brad Benjamin for the protester. Todd Bailey, Esq., Federal Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is denied where, even though agency evaluated proposals for requirements contract using higher estimated quantities than stated in solicitation, a recalculation of the prices using the quantities stated in solicitation confirms that awardee's total price remains lower than the protester's price, and where the protester has not shown that the small change in the estimated quantity would have resulted in a change in its proposed prices. DECISION Murray-Benjamin Electric Company, L.P. (MBE), a small business, protests the award of a contract to Allied Wire & Cable Inc. by Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR) under request for proposals (RFP) No. EP2466-08 for coaxial cable. MBE argues that the contracting officer (CO) erred in calculating MBE's price by using a different quantity of cable from the amount specified in the RFP. We deny the protest. UNICOR issued the RFP[1] on April 14, 2008, seeking proposals to supply cable compliant with military specification M17/84-RG223 to the federal correctional institution (FCI) at Loretto, Pennsylvania. The RFP was issued as a small business set-aside, commercial item solicitation, and sought proposals for a requirements contract for a 5-year period. After receiving initial proposals, UNICOR amended the RFP. The amendments added two additional delivery locations, changed the term of the contract to a 1'year base period followed by four annual options, provided for fixed pricing per foot, and requested revised proposals. The amendments also provided the following –estimated maximum quantit[ies]— in feet of cable:[2] Loretto, PA Fairton, NJ Lexington, KY Base Year 800,000 400,000[3] 500,000 Option Year 1 800,000 400,000 100,000 Option Year 2 800,000 400,000 100,000 Option Year 3 800,000 400,000 100,000 Option Year 4 800,000 400,000 100,000 Total 4,000,000 2,000,000 900,000 The RFP provided that –[a]ward(s) will be based on the best value to the Government with past performance and delivery significantly more important than price.— RFP at 8. The RFP explained that UNICOR desired a delivery time of 75 days or sooner from the time of issuance of each order. Revised proposals were due by June 2, 2008. UNICOR received timely revised proposals from six offerors, including MBE and Allied. Both MBE and Allied proposed to provide cable 75 days after an order, submitted past performance information, and proposed prices per foot for each location and time period. While evaluating offers, the CO noticed that the RFP option quantities for Lexington were too low by 25,000 feet per year.[4] In calculating prices for evaluation purposes, the CO used the corrected quantity for the Lexington option years. She then multiplied each quantity by the corresponding per-foot price for each offeror. Allied's total estimated price was $7,134,725, while MBE's was $7,216,775. CO Statement at 5. The CO also evaluated past performance, and concluded that Allied had excellent past performance, while MBE had good past performance. Accordingly, since Allied had higher-rated past performance than MBE, the same delivery schedule, and a lower price, the CO selected Allied for award on June 4. AR, Tab 9, Award Notice, at 1. After reviewing the award notice and obtaining a debriefing, MBE filed this protest. DISCUSSION MBE argues that UNICOR was required to amend the RFP and request revised proposals, rather than making an award based on prices calculated for the larger quantity of cable. MBE also argues that it was competitively prejudiced by the error because, if the competition had been reopened, MBE would have offered a lower price. UNICOR responds that the offerors' total prices can be recalculated with certainty, using the quantities in the RFP, and that under this approach also, Allied proposed a lower total evaluated price than MBE. CO Statement at 4.