Alamo Strategic Manufacturing, Inc. (SPE1C1-21-R-0099)

B-420716 Jul 27, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Alamo Strategic Manufacturing, Inc., a small business located in San Antonio, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Forum Industries, Inc., a small business also of San Antonio, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE1C1-21-R-0099, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for knee and elbow pads. Alamo challenges the agency's decision to exclude its proposal from the competition because it failed to submit a timely product demonstration model (PDM). The protester also challenges the award to Forum, asserting that the awardee's proposal misrepresented its source of supply. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Alamo Strategic Manufacturing, Inc. File: B-420716 Date: July 27, 2022 Rene H. Sosa, for the protester. Allison Colsey Eck, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency’s exclusion of protester’s proposal from competition due to late submission of protester’s product demonstration model (PDM) is dismissed as untimely when filed more than ten days after the agency informed the protester that its PDM was received late by the agency and would not be considered. 2. Protester is not an interested party to challenge the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal where it would not be in line for award even if its protest were to be sustained. DECISION Alamo Strategic Manufacturing, Inc., a small business located in San Antonio, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Forum Industries, Inc., a small business also of San Antonio, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE1C1-21-R-0099, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for knee and elbow pads. Alamo challenges the agency’s decision to exclude its proposal from the competition because it failed to submit a timely product demonstration model (PDM). The protester also challenges the award to Forum, asserting that the awardee’s proposal misrepresented its source of supply. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) issued the solicitation on November 2, 2021, as a small business set-aside, seeking knee and elbow pads in operational camouflage pattern and coyote. Dismissal Req., exh. 2, RFP at 1-2. The solicitation contemplated the award of a single fixed‑price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a 3-year ordering period. Id. Award was to be made to “the responsible offeror that offers the lowest price, that is determined to be fair and reasonable, and whose offer is determined to be technically acceptable in accordance with sections L and M of this solicitation.” Id. at 2. As relevant here, to be technically acceptable, “an offer must meet the minimum requirements of this solicitation and take no exception to any of the terms and conditions” and “must submit product demonstration models that are rated as acceptable in accordance with the criteria established in this solicitation.” Id. at 2, 54. The solicitation advised that proposals were to be submitted by 3:00 p.m. local time on December 1, 2021.[1] Id. at 1. Proposals were to include PDMs, consisting of three pairs of knee pads and three pairs of elbow pads. Id. at 53. The solicitation provided that PDMs “must be received prior to the time and date set forth for closing of offers.” Id. The solicitation cautioned: “Failure to furnish [product demonstration] models by the time and date specified in the solicitation may be cause for rejection of the entire offer if not otherwise acceptable under the provisions for considering late offers.” Id. By solicitation amendment, offerors were further notified of the requirements necessary to obtain access to the base to make delivery of their proposals. Dismissal Req., exh. 3, RFP, amend. 0001 at 2. The amendment also advised that “[u]ltimately, it is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that its proposal is received at the correct location at the correct time,” and that “[f]ailure to do so may result in the offeror’s proposal being deemed untimely and not considered further for award[.]” Id. DLA received timely proposals, which included timely submission of PDMs, from two offerors, including Forum, by the December 1, 2021 closing date for receipt of proposals. Dismissal Req. at 4. The agency also received a written proposal via electronic submission from Alamo by the RFP’s closing date. Id.; Protest, exh. 3, DLA Confirmation. The agency, however, did not receive Alamo’s PDMs by the December 1 deadline. Dismissal Req. at 4; Protest, exh. 2, UPS Tracking Notice at 2 (showing unsuccessful delivery on December 1, 2021).[2] Alamo’s PDMs were delivered by commercial carrier on December 3, 2021. Resp. to Dismissal Req. at 2.