Biomass Energy Service

B-412898 Jul 01, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Biomass Energy Service, of Tifton, Georgia, protests the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE600-15-R-0719, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency for bulk petroleum fuel. BioMass alleges that the rejection of its proposal was in error. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Biomass Energy Service File:  B-412898 Date:  July 1, 2016  Randy Parker for the protester. Kelly Tischler, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Eric Ransom, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s rejection of proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation requirements. DECISION Biomass Energy Service, of Tifton, Georgia, protests the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE600-15-R-0719, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency for bulk petroleum fuel.  BioMass alleges that the rejection of its proposal was in error. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on October 5, 2015, contemplated the award of multiple 1-year indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts for the supply of bulk petroleum fuel, including, as relevant to this protest, JAA (commercial) aviation fuel.  Memorandum of Law at 2.  The RFP, which provided for award on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis, set out the following five technical evaluation subfactors: supplies/services; description/specifications/statement of work; inspection/acceptance; deliveries/performance; and biofuel conformance.  Id. at 3.  In order for a proposal to be determined technically acceptable for award, an evaluation rating of “acceptable” was required under each technical evaluation subfactor.  RFP at 76.  Offerors were instructed to provide proposal information in sufficient detail to evaluate compliance with solicitation requirements.  Id. at 70.  Under the inspection/acceptance subfactor, offerors were required to demonstrate their understanding of the RFP’s contractor inspection responsibilities and quality assurance requirements set out in RFP sections E‑0001 E1 and E-0002 E1.21.  As relevant, section E-0001 E1 required offerors to have a written quality control plan setting out procedures for blending additives, sampling, testing, calibration, storage and handling, loading and shipping, records and reports, and corrective action of product deficiencies.  Id. at 21.  Section E-0002 E1.21 required that the offeror’s quality control plan also address certain minimum elements, including planned procedures for full spectrum testing and injecting additives, compliance with specifications, and records retention.  Id. at 31.  To demonstrate the required understanding of these quality assurance requirements, offerors were required to include in their initial proposals a dated coversheet and table of contents of an existing quality control plan no more than 24 months old, or an outline of a proposed quality control plan describing the offeror’s current inspection system and quality assurance procedures, with reference to the requirements of E-0001 E1 and E-0002 E1.21.  RFP Offer Submission Package at 13. The protester failed to include the required quality assurance information in its initial proposal.  The agency then requested this information from BioMass numerous times during negotiations.  Shortly before the closing date for final revised proposals, BioMass provided a brief outline of its proposed quality assurance procedures.  The protester also informed the agency that its proposed fuel terminal’s quality control plan would be used for the contract, and stated that the plan was acceptable since the agency had used that same facility for other fuel requirements.