American Fuel Cell & Coated Fabrics Company (SPRWA1-21-R-0009)

B-420551,B-420551.2 Jun 02, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights American Fuel Cell & Coated Fabrics Company (Amfuel), a small business of Magnolia, Arkansas, protests the award of contracts to Meggitt (Rockmart), Inc., a large business of Rockmart, Georgia, and Floats & Fuel Cells, Inc. (FFC), a small business of Memphis, Tennessee, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPRWA1-21-R-0009, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). The RFP seeks the manufacture of fuel bladder tanks for C-130 aircraft. The protester argues that the agency's past performance evaluation was unreasonable. Amfuel also argues that the awards to Meggitt and FFC were improper because neither awardee submitted an eligible proposal. 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: American Fuel Cell & Coated Fabrics Company File: B-420551; B-420551.2 Date: June 2, 2022 Eric S. Crusius, Esq., and Jeremy Burkhart, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. Ashley M. Kelly, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging an agency’s past performance evaluation is denied where the agency’s evaluation is reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors. 2. Protest challenging awardee’s technical evaluation is denied where, notwithstanding an apparent error, the record fails to establish competitive prejudice to the protester. DECISION American Fuel Cell & Coated Fabrics Company (Amfuel), a small business of Magnolia, Arkansas, protests the award of contracts to Meggitt (Rockmart), Inc., a large business of Rockmart, Georgia, and Floats & Fuel Cells, Inc. (FFC), a small business of Memphis, Tennessee, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPRWA1‑21‑R‑0009, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). The RFP seeks the manufacture of fuel bladder tanks for C-130 aircraft. The protester argues that the agency’s past performance evaluation was unreasonable. Amfuel also argues that the awards to Meggitt and FFC were improper because neither awardee submitted an eligible proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Issued on June 22, 2021, under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15, and in accordance with FAR subpart 16.5, the RFP contemplated award of multiple indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contracts for an ordering period up to five years if all option periods are exercised. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 3.[1] As originally issued, the RFP required the delivery of 10 fuel bladders per month beginning 180 days after the contractor received the funded delivery order. Id. at 108. The RFP advised that DLA might award up to three contracts and only offers from approved sources would be eligible for award. Id. at 3. The RFP provided for award to the responsible offerors whose proposals conform to all required terms and conditions, include all required representations and certifications, meet all requirements set forth in the RFP, and provide the best value to the government. AR, Tab 3, RFP amends. at 18. The RFP instructed offerors to submit a cover letter detailing any exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation and explaining the offeror’s rationale for the exceptions. RFP at 71. Offerors were cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP might cause their proposals to be determined unacceptable and therefore ineligible for award. Id. As relevant here, the solicitation also provided that the agency would use a tradeoff analysis to determine the best value, considering past performance and price, with past performance significantly more important than price.[2] AR, Tab 3, RFP amends. at 18. For the price factor, the RFP required offerors to fill out an attached price matrix, which included the delivery schedule. RFP at 73. Under past performance, the RFP provided for evaluation of the recency, relevance, and quality of the offeror’s past performance, based on information provided in the offeror’s proposal and independently obtained from other sources. AR, Tab 3, RFP amends. at 19‑20. The RFP instructed offerors to submit up to three past performance references for work performed within the past five years. RFP at 71. DLA would evaluate the relevance of each reference by comparing the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the effort to the requirements of this solicitation.[3] AR, Tab 3, RFP amends.