Point Blank Enterprises, Inc.

B-415021 Oct 16, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., (PBE) of Pompano Beach, Florida protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. D17PS00345, issued by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) for soft armor ballistic inserts. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably determined that PBE failed to submit the number of product demonstration models (PDMs) required by the solicitation. 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:  Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. File:  B-415021 Date:  October 16, 2017 Paul A. Debolt, Esq., and Christopher Griesedieck, Esq., Venable, LLP, for the protester. Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., and Christopher S. Cole, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Young S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly rejected protester’s proposal is denied where protester failed to submit, with its proposal, the number of product demonstration models, as required by the solicitation.  DECISION Protest that agency improperly rejected protester’s proposal is denied where protester failed to submit, with its proposal, the number of product demonstration models, as required by the solicitation.  DECISION Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., (PBE) of Pompano Beach, Florida protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. D17PS00345, issued by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) for soft armor ballistic inserts.  The protester argues that the agency unreasonably determined that PBE failed to submit the number of product demonstration models (PDMs) required by the solicitation.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 3, 2017, the agency issued the RFP, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, for SPEAR (Special Operations Forces Personal Equipment Advanced Requirements) soft armor ballistic inserts.  Agency Report (AR), RFP, at 1‑48, 92.[1]  The solicitation contemplated the award of an indefinite-quality, indefinite‑delivery (IDIQ) contact with a 1-year base period and four 1-year options to the offeror or offerors submitting proposal(s) determined by USSOCOM to represent the best value.[2]  The deadline for receipt of proposals was May 15.  Id. at 1, 92. Proposals were to be evaluated in three phases under the RFP.[3]  Id. at 92-93.  During phase one, proposals were to be evaluated, on a pass/fail basis, to determine whether they met certain minimum solicitation requirements.[4]  Id.  One of these minimum requirements mandated that offerors submit a specific number of PDMs with their proposal.  RFP attach. 3 at 2; RFP at 86.  Of relevance here, offerors were required to submit two “sets” of five different sizes of SPEAR plate shaped soft armor inserts.[5]  AR, Tab 5, RFP attach. 1, at 20.  Offerors were also notified that a failure to meet the PDM submission requirement, or any other phase one evaluation requirement, would “constitute failure of the entire proposal” and would result in “remov[al] from further consideration of award.”  RFP at 93. The agency received [DELETED] proposals in response to the RFP, two of which were submitted by PBE.  Contracting Officer Statement (COS) at 5.  On July 24, PBE was notified that both of its proposals were excluded from the competitive range and, thereby, eliminated from the competition because PBE had failed to submit the correct number of PDMs required under the solicitation.  AR, Tab 12, Notification of Exclusion from Competitive Range, at 2.  PBE requested, and on July 26, received a pre-award debriefing.  COS at 6.  PBE filed its protest with our Office on August 1.  Protest at 1.  DISCUSSION The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably excluded PBE’s proposals from the competitive range for failing to submit the requisite number of PDMs required by the solicitation.[6]  In this regard, the protester contends that the RFP contained a latent ambiguity, making it unclear exactly how many PDMs were required for submission.  Protest at 8-10.  In support of this contention, PBE asserts that because the RFP required offerors to price SPEAR soft armor inserts on an individual basis, rather than as a set, this created an ambiguity in the solicitation regarding the requisite number of PDMs in a set.  Id.  The protester also asserts that its latent ambiguity argument is further bolstered by the fact that there is no front or rear SPEAR plate armor insert because the item is interchangeable, and so submitting a front and back component is impossible.  Id.