High Noon Unlimited Inc. (W911QY-20-R-0010)

B-419268 Jan 12, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights High Noon Unlimited Inc., a small business of Holiday, Florida, protests the decision by the Department of the Army to exclude High Noon from the competitive range in the competition of request for proposals (RFP) No. W911QY-20-R-0010, which was issued for parachutist flotation devices (PFDs). High Noon argues that to the extent its proposal contained obvious errors or missing information, the agency was required to contact High Noon, ask for the correct or missing information, and allow High Noon to complete or correct its proposal as necessary. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  High Noon Unlimited Inc. File:  B-419268 Date:  January 12, 2021 Dr. George B. Inabinet III, High Noon Unlimited Inc., for the protester. Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Stephanie B. Magnell, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Challenge to the exclusion of the protester’s proposal from the competitive range is denied where the agency reasonably found that the proposal failed to comply with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest that the agency should have opened discussions and permitted the protester to revise its unacceptable proposal is denied, where the agency had no obligation to do so.  DECISION   High Noon Unlimited Inc., a small business of Holiday, Florida, protests the decision by the Department of the Army to exclude High Noon from the competitive range in the competition of request for proposals (RFP) No. W911QY-20-R-0010, which was issued for parachutist flotation devices (PFDs).  High Noon argues that to the extent its proposal contained obvious errors or missing information, the agency was required to contact High Noon, ask for the correct or missing information, and allow High Noon to complete or correct its proposal as necessary. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 7, 2020, the Army issued the RFP in accordance with the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, Contracting by Negotiation.  See RFP at 86.[1]  The RFP sought proposals for PFDs, or inflatable flotation devices which a parachutist would wear, in various configurations, “whenever a flight is conducted over water, a water obstacle is on the Drop Zone (DZ) or the intended DZ is close to a water obstacle.”  Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2. The RFP anticipated the award of a single fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with a 5‑year period of performance.  Award was to be made to the entity whose proposal represented the best value to the agency, considering the factors of technical, management, price, and past performance, in descending order of importance.  RFP at 95, § M.1.1.  The Army reserved the right to make award without discussions, and thus offerors were cautioned that their initial proposal submissions should contain their best terms.  Id. § M.1.2.  The technical factor was divided into two equally-weighted evaluation “areas”:  technical approach and demonstrated compliance with performance requirements.  Id. § M.2.1.  Offerors were advised that in the assessment of the technical approach area, proposals would be “evaluated as an indicator of the offeror’s understanding of all technical and operational performance requirements . . . .”  Id. § M.2.1.1.  In addition, the offeror’s proposed PFD would be evaluated to assess its potential to “meet[] the performance requirements.”  Id.  Finally, the agency would evaluate “test data provided by the offeror that demonstrates the ability of the proposed system to meet performance requirements . . . .”  Id.  Under the technical factor, the agency would assign a rating of unacceptable to a “[p]roposal [that] does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.”  Id. at 98, § M.4.2.  An unacceptable rating would render a proposal ineligible for award.  Id. As relevant to the protest, under the header “PFD Requirements,” the solicitation established the following threshold[2] “(T)” performance standard for the PFDs: KPP [Key Performance Parameter] 2 - Supporting Weight/Time.  Once inflated, the PFD must be capable of supporting the weight of a 98th percentile male, with body armor, in an orientation in which the head is completely above the water line and tilting to the rear for at least one hour (T).  [. . . .]  The PFD by activation must provide a minimum of 80 lbf [pounds force] of lift at the surface of fresh water at standard sea level atmospheric pressure and 72 ⁰ F temperature (T) . . . . Id.