Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc. (47QFDA23Q0050)

B-421979.4 May 07, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc., of Virginia Beach, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to another firm under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47QFDA23Q0050, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for ballistic armor kits for the Department of the Navy. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation. 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: Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc. File: B-421979.4 Date: May 7, 2024 Kevin J. Cosgrove, Esq., Willcox & Savage, PC, for the protester. Maria DiGiovanni, Esq., and Katherine Vernet, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Christine Milne, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s quotation is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated the protester’s quotation in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc., of Virginia Beach, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to another firm under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47QFDA23Q0050, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for ballistic armor kits for the Department of the Navy. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ was issued on August 16, 2023, as a delivery order for ballistic armor kits under the GSA multiple award schedule (MAS) in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 to support the Navy Shore Activities Fire Protection and Emergency Services Program. Agency Report (AR), Exh., B, RFQ, amend. 0008[1] at 3, 35. The RFQ requested two types of ballistic armor kits, each described in detail under two contract line item numbers (CLINs). Id. at 3-6. Each CLIN listed pieces of armor to be provided and, as relevant here, CLIN 1 required vendors to provide the Army Combat Helmet (ACH) IIIA Full-Cut Helmet with mesh and ratchet retention suspension in sizes medium and large. Id. at 4. Vendors had to provide the manufacturer, brand name, model number, part number, and specifications for each item proposed. RFQ § 11.5.1. The items proposed had to meet the required product specifications listed in section 2.4, table 2.1 of the RFQ. Id. at § 2.4. Award would be made to the vendor whose quotation was the most advantageous to the government considering price and two technical factors: ballistic kits and corporate experience. Id. at 35-37. The kits were to be delivered according to a staggered delivery schedule and delivery had to be completed no later than 240 days after award. Id. at 9-12. Under the ballistic kits factor, vendors were required to provide all the items described in CLINS 1 and 2 in accordance with the product specifications in section 2.4, table 1.2, and to agree to the delivery schedule. Id. at 36. Quotations would be assigned pass or fail ratings under this factor. Id. Under the corporate experience factor, vendors were required to provide one example of a past project completed within the past five years that required delivery and was similar in size. Id. at 32, 36. Under this factor, quotations would be assigned a rating of high confidence, some confidence, or low confidence; a quotation had to receive a rating of at least some confidence to be eligible for award. Id. at 36. Price was to be evaluated for reasonableness. Id. The evaluation methodology provided that “No Assumptions, Conditions, Exceptions are permitted. Any response containing Assumptions, Conditions, or Exceptions will be rejected and are ineligible for award.” Id. at 37. The evaluation methodology also provided that the agency intended to make award without exchanges unless exchanges were determined to be necessary. Id. at 35. The agency timely received quotations from five vendors, including Atlantic. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. During the evaluation, the agency determined that it needed additional information to evaluate Atlantic’s quotation and issued a letter requesting clarification of portions of Atlantic’s quotation. The letter sought Atlantic’s responses to seven items. Items 1-6 each detailed a technical requirement, the corresponding portion of Atlantic’s quotation that appeared to address the requirement, the agency’s comments on what kind of clarification was requested, and a note that the failure to meet each requirement was a technical failure. AR, Exh E, GSA Exchange Notice at 1-8. Item 7 asked Atlantic to confirm that its pricing was still valid.