Areaka Trading & Logistics Company

B-413363 Oct 13, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Areaka Trading & Logistics Company, of Amman, Jordan, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. SP0600-16-R-0214, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for the delivery of various types of fuel, including jet propulsion 8 (JP8) aviation fuel, to locations in Jordan and the Arab Emirates. The protester asserts that the RFP terms are defective because the solicitation does not require an offeror to demonstrate, as a precondition of award, that the offeror is authorized by the Royal Jordanian Air Force (RJAF) to sell JP8 fuel in Jordan. 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:  Areaka Trading & Logistics Company File:  B-413363 Date:  October 13, 2016 David T. Ralston Jr., Esq., Frank Murray, Esq., Anna S. Ross, Esq., and Micah Zomer, Esq., Foley & Lardner LLP, for the protester. Matthew Vasquez, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency’s solicitation unreasonably failed to include definitive responsibility criterion requiring offerors show specific authorization to sell jet fuel is denied where agency provides reasonable basis to require compliance during contract performance and the record provides no basis to deviate from the general principle that this Office does not permit a protester to use the protest process to advocate for more restrictive government requirements.  DECISION Areaka Trading & Logistics Company, of Amman, Jordan, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. SP0600-16-R-0214, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for the delivery of various types of fuel, including jet propulsion 8 (JP8) aviation fuel, to locations in Jordan and the Arab Emirates.  The protester asserts that the RFP terms are defective because the solicitation does not require an offeror to demonstrate, as a precondition of award, that the offeror is authorized by the Royal Jordanian Air Force (RJAF) to sell JP8 fuel in Jordan. We deny the protest. On June 30, 2015, DLA issued the solicitation to contractors with current Basic Ordering Agreements (BOAs) issued under Solicitation No. SP06-15-R-0210.  Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, Combined Synopsis/Solicitation.  The solicitation contemplates the award of one or more requirements-type, fixed-price with economic price adjustment contracts to the responsible offeror or offerors offering the lowest price for a variety of fuels, including JP8, an aviation fuel, for delivery to locations in Jordan and the Arab Emirates.  RFP at 2, 80.  The performance period is from the date of award through May 31, 2017, or January 31, 2019, depending on the type of fuel.  Id. at 1.  Areaka is the incumbent contractor for some of the fuels being procured.  AR at 2.  The total estimated value of the contract is $14,584,732.  Id. at 4 citing RFP at 2, 7-9. Areaka, which holds the required BOA, challenges the failure of the solicitation to include a requirement that an offeror demonstrate, as a precondition of award, that the offeror is authorized by the RJAF to sell JP8 fuel in Jordan.  Protest at 14-15.  Specifically, the protester asserts that the sale of JP8 fuel to U.S. and U.S.-friendly forces in Jordan requires authorization by the RJAF, and failure to have this authorization is contrary to Jordanian law and thus the terms of the solicitation.  Id. at 14 citing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.212-4 (requiring contractor compliance with local law).  Because the terms of the RFP require immediate contract performance, and obtaining the required RJAF authorization is a lengthy process, Areaka claims that only a contractor that has the authorization prior to award will be able to begin immediately.  Id. at 14-15.  Here, Areaka argues that the agency should view the RJAF authorization as a definitive responsibility criterion, and that the RFP’s failure to require offerors to obtain the RJAF authorization prior to award is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to procurement law.  Id. at 16. A definitive responsibility criterion is a specific and objective standard, qualitative or quantitative, that is established by a contracting agency in a solicitation to measure an offeror’s ability to perform a contract.  An agency may include definitive responsibility criteria in a solicitation so long as the criteria used reflect the agency’s legitimate needs.  Software City, B-217542, Apr.