AGE Logistics Corporation

B-412049 Dec 09, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AGE Logistics Corporation (AGE), a small business, of Monrovia, California, protests the award to East/West Industries, Inc. (East/West), a small business, of Ronkonkoma, New York, under request for proposal (RFP) No. FA8533-14-R-30933, which was issued by the Department of the Air Force for Multi Aircraft Canopy Cranes. AGE asserts that the Air Force failed to reasonably evaluate whether East/West's price was too low. 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:  AGE Logistics Corporation File:  B-412049 Date:  December 9, 2015 Robert A. Brunette, Esq., Robert A. Brunette Law Office, for AGE Logistics Corporation, the protester. Pamela J. Mazza, Esq., Kathryn V. Flood, Esq., and Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for East/West Industries, Inc., the intervenor. Christopher S. Cole, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Elizabeth Witwer, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the evaluation of the awardee’s price is denied where the agency determined that the price was fair and reasonable based on adequate price competition, and was not required to perform a price realism analysis because the solicitation did not provide for such an analysis. DECISION AGE Logistics Corporation (AGE), a small business, of Monrovia, California, protests the award to East/West Industries, Inc. (East/West), a small business, of Ronkonkoma, New York, under request for proposal (RFP) No. FA8533-14-R-30933, which was issued by the Department of the Air Force for Multi Aircraft Canopy Cranes.  AGE asserts that the Air Force failed to reasonably evaluate whether East/West’s price was too low. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was issued on March 18, 2015, as a small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed‑price requirements contract, consisting of a base year and four 1-year options, for Multi Aircraft Canopy Cranes with a lifting capacity of at least 1500 pounds.  RFP at 1, 3, 88.  The best estimated quantity (BEQ) identified a projected total acquisition of 186 cranes.  Id. at 3.  The RFP informed offerors that the award would be made using the tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3.  RFP at 66.  Two factors, of equal importance, would be evaluated in making an award:  past performance and cost/price.  Id. at 66-67.  With respect to past performance, the RFP instructed offerors to provide data on three active or completed contracts, performed within the last 5 years, that the offeror considered relevant in demonstrating its ability to manufacture the cranes required by the subject acquisition.  Id. at 63.  The Air Force was to evaluate each submitted contract for recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.  Id. at 67.  Based on its evaluation, the Air Force was to assign an overall confidence assessment rating of substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown confidence (neutral).  Id. at 70. With respect to the cost/price factor, the RFP stated that the Air Force would evaluate proposals for reasonableness, balance, and total evaluated price.  Id. at 71-72.  Of relevance to AGE’s challenge to the Air Force’s price evaluation, the RFP provided that “[t]he existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness.”  Id. at 71.  The Air Force received proposals from three offerors, including AGE and East/West.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 24, Source Selection Decision Document, at 1-2.  The Air Force conducted discussions with all three offerors and received final proposals.  Id. at 2.  A Final Performance Report and a Final Price Comparison Memorandum were prepared to document the evaluation of proposals.  Id. As relevant here, Air Force performed a price reasonableness analysis, as required by the RFP, by comparing proposed prices to find adequate price competition.  RFP at 71; AR, Tab 24, Source Selection Decision Document, at 4-5; Tab 21, Final Price Competition Memorandum, at 2, 5.  To ensure that proposals were accurate and free of errors, after the submission of initial proposals, the Air Force evaluated whether offerors’ contract line item numbers (CLIN) prices were more than 25 percent above or below the average proposed price for that CLIN.  AR, Tab 21, Final Price Competition Memorandum, at 5.  The agency concluded that all three offerors’ prices were outside the 25 percent average for one or more of the CLINs, and provided the offerors an opportunity to revise or confirm their prices.  Id.