International Waste Industries

B-411338 Jul 07, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights International Waste Industries (IWI), of Rockville, Maryland, a small business, protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to Mahto Construction, Inc. (Mahto), of Wasilla, Alaska, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA5000-15-T-0010, for a solid waste incinerator for use at Wake Island. IWI contends that the agency unreasonably determined that its quotation was technically unacceptable and also engaged in unequal discussions. We sustain the protest. We sustain 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:      International Waste Industries File:                B-411338 Date:              July 7, 2015 Mehran Etemad, for the protester. Phillip Reiman, Esq., and  Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Frank Maguire, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is sustained where the agency engaged in discussions with the awardee, permitting the awardee to remedy unacceptable pricing terms in its quotation, but did not engage in discussions with the protester. DECISION International Waste Industries (IWI), of Rockville, Maryland, a small business, protests the Department of the Air Force’s award of a contract to Mahto Construction, Inc. (Mahto), of Wasilla, Alaska, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA5000-15-T-0010, for a solid waste incinerator for use at Wake Island.  IWI contends that the agency unreasonably determined that its quotation was technically unacceptable and also engaged in unequal discussions. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ provided for award of a fixed-price contract for a solid waste incinerator to be delivered to Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickham, for use on Wake Island by the Missile Defense Agency.  RFQ at 1; see Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2.[1]  The acquisition, conducted under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, and FAR Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures, was set aside for small businesses.  RFQ at 1.  Award was to be made to the vendor submitting the lowest‑priced technically acceptable quotation that conformed to the terms of the solicitation.  RFQ at 2.  The RFQ advised that to be technically acceptable, vendors must meet all of the specifications in the statement of work.  Id.  In this regard, the statement of work included 11 specific requirements, including, as relevant here, that the incinerator be lined with replaceable ceramic refractory material.  RFQ at 9-10. The RFQ also provided, with regard to discussions, that: The Government intends to evaluate offers and award without discussion, but reserves the right to conduct discussions.  Therefore, the offeror’s initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.  However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the contracting officer to be necessary. Id. at 2. The agency received 11 timely quotations in response to the RFQ, including quotations from IWI and Mahto.  COS at 5.  The Air Force “forwarded the quotes in order of lowest price to the customer,[[2]] who evaluated each quote for technical acceptability.”  Id. As relevant here, Mahto’s quotation stated the following with regard to installation costs: Mobilization to and from Jobsite by EWS technicians (air travel, taxi etc.) and Room and Board on-site.  To be billed separately at $ per diem. Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, Mahto Quotation, at 16.  In addition, with regard to “Payment Terms,” Mahto’s quotation listed a “Schedule of Payments” as follows:   [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] Id. After reviewing Mahto’s quotation, the Air Force contacted Mahto regarding the terms of its quotation set forth above.  Specifically, the agency and Mahto engaged in the following exchanges: [Agency Question]  No.