HPLogIT Management, LLC

B-412609.3 Aug 18, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights HPLogIT Management, LLC (HPL), of Texarkana, Texas, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Oran Safety Glass, Inc. (OSG), of Emporia, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-15-R-0239, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Material Command, for the MRAP M-ATV Transparent Armor Assembly (TAA) Refurbishment Program at Red River Army Depot. The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of the awardee's proposal and product sample, and resulting award, were improper. 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. Matter of:  HPLogIT Management, LLC File:  B-412609.3 Date:  August 18, 2016 James A. Pikl, Esq., and Andrea Kelly Bouressa, Esq., Scheef & Stone, L.L.P., and Kirstin D. Dietel, Esq., and Robert J. Sherry, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius L.L.P., for the protester. Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., and Mark J. Wishner, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P., for Oran Safety Glass, Inc., an intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Nichole Cram, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is sustained where record does not include documentation showing that the agency inspected awardee’s product sample for conformance to terms of the statement of work, as required by the solicitation. DECISION HPLogIT Management, LLC (HPL), of Texarkana, Texas, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Oran Safety Glass, Inc. (OSG), of Emporia, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-15-R-0239, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Material Command, for the MRAP M-ATV Transparent Armor Assembly (TAA) Refurbishment Program at Red River Army Depot.  The protester argues that the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal and product sample, and resulting award, were improper. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND On September 30, 2015, the agency issued the RFP for the remanufacturing of a total of 9,000 TAAs that consisted of rear doors, passenger doors, driver’s doors, passenger windshields, and driver’s windshields, as well as an option quantity for the remanufacturing of a total of 9,000 TAAs.  RFP at 2, 18.[1]  Under the terms of the solicitation, which was set aside for small businesses, the agency would furnish the contractor used TAAs (as government furnished material) for refurbishment.  The RFP contemplated the award of a 1-year, fixed-price contract to the responsible firm whose proposal has the lowest total evaluated price. The solicitation provided that the evaluation would be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6 (Streamlined Procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation for Commercial Items) using the evaluation factors of price and technical acceptability.  After rank‑ordering proposals by price, the technical evaluation was to begin with the lowest-priced proposal.  If the lowest‑priced proposal was determined to be unacceptable then the agency would evaluate the technical acceptability of the next-lowest offeror, and this process would continue until the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal was identified.  Id. at 56.[2] The RFP advised that technical acceptability would be established through the “submission and inspection of [product samples]” and an evaluation of the offeror’s proposed production process.  Id. at 2.  With regard to the product sample, the offeror was to request one windshield TAA from the agency that it would remanufacture in accordance with the statement of work (SOW) and return to the agency.  Id. at 53.  The RFP further advised that to be determined technically acceptable, the offeror’s provided product sample had to conform to the requirements of sections C.6 through C.10 of the SOW, and the offeror’s description of its production process had to be “determined by the Government to clearly result in the production of assemblies that consistently meet the inspection requirements.”  Id.