Wright Tool Company (W9098S21R0009)

B-420553 Jul 20, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Wright Tool Company, of Warren, Michigan, protests the rejection of its proposal and the award of a contract to Kipper Tool Company, of Gainesville, Georgia. Wright Tool challenges the rejection of its offer and award under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9098S21R0009, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, Army Contracting Command-Rock Island, for various types of tools for its metal working and machining shop set (MWMSS) shelters. Wright Tool contends that the agency improperly rejected its 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. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Wright Tool Company File: B-420553 Date: July 20, 2022 James Y. Rayis, Esq., Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C., for the protester. Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Russell W. Bottom, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably evaluated and rejected the protester’s proposal as unacceptable where the proposal failed to satisfy a material term in the solicitation. DECISION Wright Tool Company, of Warren, Michigan, protests the rejection of its proposal and the award of a contract to Kipper Tool Company, of Gainesville, Georgia. Wright Tool challenges the rejection of its offer and award under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9098S21R0009, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, Army Contracting Command-Rock Island, for various types of tools for its metal working and machining shop set (MWMSS) shelters. Wright Tool contends that the agency improperly rejected its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on April 20, 2021, under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15 procedures, contemplates the award of a 5-year fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for the supply of various types of tools in support of the MWMSS program at the Rock Island Arsenal, Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center.[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP at 3. Award was to be made based on the following criteria: (1) price analysis, in accordance with FAR section 15.404-1, where price analysis would be used to determine price reasonableness and whether the proposal reflected an understanding of the effort required; and (2) unbalanced pricing. Id. at 6. The RFP advised that the total evaluated price would be derived from a pricing matrix. Id. The agency issued a total of six amendments, which extended the closing date of the solicitation, provided missing drawings, and answered solicitation questions. COS/MOL at 2-3. As relevant here, the sixth amendment extended the closing date to January 4, 2022, updated drawings, and stated the following: “In accordance with Note 3 of original solicitation Page 5, ‘Deliveries must begin within 90 days of issuance of a delivery order.’ Please indicate that your firm is able to meet this. If you are unable to meet this, what time frame is achievable?” Id. at 4. Four offerors, including Kipper and Wright Tool, submitted proposals in response to the solicitation. COS/MOL at 5. The protester submitted its proposal via email and included the following statement: Wright Tool Company, LLC would like to propose 150 day delivery on the first delivery order to account for supply chain disruptions. We do not see issues with any particular item in the tool-load, but we have had many unexpected shortages due to the global pandemic environment and we would caution that unexpected delays are commonplace. We will still strive to meet the 90 day delivery, but adding 60 days is a responsible decision in the current environment. AR, Tab 29, WTC Revised Quote at 1. The agency found that Kipper and another offeror had affirmed the ability to meet the solicitation’s delivery timeline, but that Wright Tool had taken exception to the timeline. COS/MOL at 5. The agency rejected the protester’s proposal, which had a total evaluated price of $6,435,885, determined that Kipper had submitted the “lowest-priced responsive proposal,” and awarded the contract to Kipper at a price of $7,459,550 on February 14. Id. That same day, the agency notified Wright Tool that its offer was unsuccessful. Id. at 6. This protest followed on February 22. DISCUSSION The protester argues that the agency unreasonably rejected its proposal, contending that it never repudiated the 90-day delivery timeline.