Theodor Wille Intertrade AG

B-409976 Sep 26, 2014 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Technology Management Company, Inc. (TMC), of Albuquerque, New Mexico, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE5B1-14-R-0001, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for various supplies in support of the agency's maintenance, repair, and operations (MRO) requirements. TMC argues that the agency's rejection was unreasonable because DLA's evaluation was not in accordance with the solicitation's criteria. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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: Technology Management Company, Inc. File: B-409976 Date: September 26, 2014 Carolyn Callaway, Esq., Carolyn Callaway, P.C., for the protester. Bethany Hsu, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency’s decision to reject protester’s proposal is unobjectionable where the solicitation required offerors to provide prices for 100 items; the solicitation advised that failure to provide prices for all items could result in rejection of the proposal; and the protester failed to provide pricing for three of the 100 items. DECISION Technology Management Company, Inc. (TMC), of Albuquerque, New Mexico, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE5B1-14-R-0001, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for various supplies in support of the agency’s maintenance, repair, and operations (MRO) requirements. TMC argues that the agency’s rejection was unreasonable because DLA’s evaluation was not in accordance with the solicitation’s criteria. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND DLA issued the solicitation on March 28, 2014, seeking proposals for DLA’s Tailored Logistics Support Prime Vendor Program for the Europe and Africa regions. Under the program, contractors provide a variety of commercial items, such as plumbing and electrical supplies, in support of MRO requirements of military installations and other federal activities. RFP at 4, 36-37. The solicitation here, issued under the commercial item procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, contemplated the award of four fixed-price indefinite‑delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts each with a 2-year base period and two 18-month option periods. Id. at 7, 9, 15. The RFP stated that contracts would be awarded for two different “zones” in the European region and two zones in the African region.[1] Id. at 7, 36. The solicitation advised that offerors could submit multiple proposals, but “[t]o ensure the continuous availability of reliable sources of supply,” firms could only be awarded one contract in each region. Id. at 7. The RFP provided that award would be made on a best-value basis considering past performance, technical merit,[2] and price. Id. at 7, 69. Past performance was stated to be more important than technical merit, and the non-price factors were “significantly more important” than price. Id. The solicitation further advised that as the non-price ratings of offers became more equivalent, price would become more important. Id. Of relevance to this protest, the solicitation included a 100-item Price Evaluation List (PEL) that identified a “sampling of the scope of material that the contractor may be required to furnish” under the contract. Id. at 4. Items on the list were illustrative of the types of supplies that had been previously provided to DLA customers. Id. The solicitation instructed offerors to propose acquisition ceiling prices (for the base and option periods) “for 100% of the items in the PEL” for each zone for which the offeror was submitting a proposal.[3] Id. at 65 (emphasis in solicitation); see also id. at 8, 38, 62, 67, and 74 (advising offerors of the requirement to provide prices for 100 percent of the items on the PEL). The solicitation also permitted offerors to propose acceptable alternate items instead of the brand name items identified on the PEL.[4] Id. at 66. To be considered acceptable, alternate items had to be “equal to the item specified in the PEL, have the same form, fit and function, and be compliant with applicable sourcing restrictions.” Id. If an alternate item was proposed, the offeror had to provide information substantiating that the alternate item was equal to the item listed on the PEL and identify in their PEL submission the country of origin for each alternate item. Id. at 65-66. In this respect, the solicitation advised that certain sourcing restrictions including the Berry Amendment[5] and the Trade Agreements Act (TAA)[6] applied to the procurement. Id. at 7, 92‑93.