Western Metal Supply Company, Inc. (F3G3AA3111AW01)

B-421919 Nov 20, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Western Metal Supply, Inc. (WMS), a small business of Escondido, California, protests the award of a contract to Agate Steel, a small business of Scottsdale, Arizona, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. F3G3AA3111AW01, issued by the Department of the Air Force for flight-line sunshade structures. The protester argues that the RFQ failed to include necessary specifications, and that the agency otherwise deviated from the RFQ's requirements in the evaluation of quotations. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of: Western Metal Supply, Inc. File: B-421919 Date: November 20, 2023 Abel Caballero, for the protester. Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., and Lawrence Anderson, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Suresh S. Boodram, Esq., Michael Willems, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest is dismissed as untimely where the protester alleges that the solicitation was defective because it failed to include required specifications, but the protest was not filed before the closing time for the submission of quotations. 2. Protest challenging an agency’s evaluation of quotations and source selection decision is denied where the agency’s evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Western Metal Supply, Inc. (WMS), a small business of Escondido, California, protests the award of a contract to Agate Steel, a small business of Scottsdale, Arizona, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. F3G3AA3111AW01, issued by the Department of the Air Force for flight-line sunshade structures. The protester argues that the RFQ failed to include necessary specifications, and that the agency otherwise deviated from the RFQ’s requirements in the evaluation of quotations. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND The RFQ was issued on May 17, 2023, using the commercial acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, and the simplified acquisition procedures of FAR part 13. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. The RFQ contemplated a lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection. Id. The RFQ sought quotations for two shade structures that each included six aircraft parking bays at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. Id. The agency received quotations from several firms, including both the awardee and the protester, by the closing date of June 21, 2023. Id. at 4. On July 11, the agency issued amendment 5 to the solicitation, which added two additional contract line item numbers (CLINs), 0007 and 0008, and sought updated pricing. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 4. Both CLIN 0007 and 0008 related to photovoltaic array (PVA) systems.[1] Id. Of note, while several other CLINs were marked as optional, CLINs 0007 and 0008 were not marked as optional.[2] Id. Beyond the description provided in CLINs 0007 and 0008, the agency did not provide further specifications. COS at 2. The requested date for updated pricing was July 13. MOL at 5. WMS and Agate Steel submitted updated quotations by the revised deadline, and the agency determined both quotations were acceptable with total evaluated prices of $4,573,177 and $3,491,356, respectively. AR Tab 13, Abstract at 1; MOL at 6. On August 8, the Air Force notified WMS that award was made to Agate Steel. MOL at 6. Also on August 8, the Air Force provided WMS with a written debriefing via email. Id. WMS subsequently requested an oral debriefing, which the agency provided via phone on August 17. Id. This protest followed. DISCUSSION WMS raises two primary bases of protest. First, WMS alleges that the RFQ lacked necessary information with respect to the specifications for the PVA system that prevented firms from competing intelligently. Comments at 1-2. Second, WMS alleges that the Air Force, in the post-award debriefing, admitted that CLINs 0007 and 0008, for the PVA Systems, were not required. The protester contends that it would have submitted a more competitive quotation had it known those CLINs were not required. Protest at 1. We address these arguments in turn. PVA System Requirements WMS challenges the RFQ’s lack of specifications for the PVA systems. Comments at 1-2. The protester specifically contends that the RFQ lacked key details such as the type of warranty for the PVA system’s solar panels, as well as the desired PVA system output. Id. WMS argues that the agency’s failure to include detailed specifications prejudiced the protester because it could not provide accurate pricing and design information. Id. at 2. Our Bid Protest regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission of protests.