• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Matter of Sea Box, Inc.

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • January 19, 2022
  • Beyond the ScopeBid Protest JurisdictionGAO Jurisdiction
  • 0 Comments

Matter of Sea Box, Inc.

Decided: November 18, 2021

Agency: Defense Logistics Agency (“DLA”)

Disposition: Protest Denied

Keywords: Bid Protest Jurisdiction; GAO Jurisdiction; Beyond the Scope

 

General Counsel, P.C. Protest Insight:

This protest highlights the difficulty for a protester to succeed on a bid protest based on noncompliance with the Buy American Act (“BAA”). Here, GAO made clear that deference will be given to an agency’s reasonable reliance on an offeror’s self-certification, unless the agency had reason to believe, prior to award, that an offeror would not provide domestic products. Without a reason to doubt an offeror’s self-certification prior to award, further investigation by the agency is not required. After award, whether or not an offeror breached its duty to comply with the BAA is a matter of contract administration, which is not subject to resolution under GAO Bid Protest Regulations. Additionally, GAO stated that notice of prior noncompliance must be supported by substantive facts to require further investigation by an agency rather than reliance on an offeror’s self-certification. Unsupported allegations by a competitor alone do not impose an obligation on the agency to conduct a detailed investigation.

Summary of Facts

Sea Box, Inc., a small business, protests the issuance of a purchase order to W&K Containers, Inc., under RFQ No. SPE8ED-21-Q-1167, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (“DLA”). The solicitation was issued on August 19, 2021, as a small business set-aside for Tricon freight containers. The RFQ incorporated the Buy American Statute — Balance of Payments Program Certification and Buy American and Balance of Payments Program, into the solicitation. The Buy American Act requires vendors to certify that their end products are domestic, from a qualifying country, or foreign. If an end-product is identified as a foreign end-product, the agency must apply a 50% evaluation factor to a quotation if the low-priced quotation is a foreign quotation that is not exempt.

DLA received quotations from Sea Box and W&K. W&K quoted a lower price than Sea Box and identified itself as a dealer of containers manufactured by a domestic company, listed the manufacturer’s commercial and government entity number, and identified its containers as “Domestic End Products.” DLA issued the purchase order to W&K and Sea Box filed this protest.

Basis of Protest

Sea Box alleges that W&K’s quoted end-product is not a domestic end-product because the item does not meet the component test and does not qualify as a commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) item. Thus, Sea Box argues that DLA should have treated W&K’s product as a foreign end-product and applied a 50% evaluation factor. Sea Box also argues that DLA should have inquired into W&K’s COTS eligibility prior to award. DLA argues that it reasonably relied on W&K’s BAA self-certification and had no reason to request additional supporting documentation regarding W&K’s COTS status because the agency had no reason to believe that W&K’s BAA certification contained a misrepresentation.

Protest Denied

GAO stated that when a vendor or offeror represents that it will provide domestic end products in compliance with the Buy American Act, it is obligated to comply with that representation. If an agency has reason to believe, prior to award, that a firm will not provide domestic products, the agency should go beyond a firm’s representation of compliance with the BAA. However, where a contracting officer has no information prior to award that would lead to the conclusion that the product to be furnished is not a domestic end-product, the contracting officer may properly rely upon an offeror’s self-certification without further investigation. GAO clarified that “unsupported allegations that a competitor’s product is not in compliance with its Buy American Act certification do not impose an obligation on the contracting officer to conduct a detailed investigation behind that certification.” GAO noted that whether an offeror does in fact furnish a foreign end-product in violation of its certification is a matter of contract administration.

GAO found that W&K affirmed that it would furnish a domestic end-product and provided the CAGE number of its domestic manufacturer and, thus, DLA reasonably determined that W&K’s quotation presented no questions regarding the validity of its BAA certification. While Sea Box asserts that it was unreasonable for DLA to rely on W&K’s self-certification because the agency was on notice that W&K’s BAA certification was invalid, GAO disagreed. Sea Box argues DLA was on notice because of (1) a prior GAO protest that was filed and withdrawn by W&K and (2) an email exchange between Sea Box and DLA representatives. DLA was involved in a prior protest filed by W&K regarding domestic end products and COTS eligibility for an unrelated procurement for a different type of container, but W&K withdrew the protest. Thus, GAO never addressed the merits of the allegation raised in that protest and never formally determined that W&K’s containers were not COTS eligible. Sea Box offered no substantive evidence establishing that W&K misrepresented its end-product status on its BAA certification.

In the emails referenced by Sea Box, Sea Box indicated to DLA representatives that it didn’t believe that W&K sells Tricons in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace. However, Sea Box provided no factual information in those emails to support its allegations that W&K’s products were not COTS eligible and couldn’t qualify as domestic end products. GAO stated that “unsupported allegations lodged by a competitor that another competitor’s products–in unrelated procurements–were not in compliance with its Buy American Act certification does not impose an obligation on the contracting officer to conduct a detailed investigation behind that certification.”

Through its certification and subsequent award of the purchase order, W&K is bound to comply with the BAA. GAO held that whether or not W&K breached its duty to comply with the BAA is a matter of contract administration, which is not subject to resolution under GAO Bid Protest Regulations.

Our Government Contracts Practice Group has extensive experience in the area of government contract law, helping clients solve their government contract problems relating to the award or performance of a federal government contract, including bid protests, contract claims, small business concerns, and teaming and subcontractor relations. If you need more guidance or information, contact the Government Contracts law experts at General Counsel, PC today at 703-266-1865.

Share

Related Posts

Matter of AVER, LLC

March 9, 2021

Matter of The MayaTech Corporation

March 3, 2021

Matter of DLF-CPC JV, LLC

September 4, 2020

Matter of R B Toth Associates LLC

March 25, 2020

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Need help with a bid protest?

Call us at: 703-556-0411 Or fill out this form:

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adequately Written Proposal
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Ambiguity in Solicitation
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Bad Faith in Evaluation
  • Below-Cost Offer
  • Best Value
  • Beyond the Scope
  • Bias
  • Bid and Proposal Costs
  • Bid Bond
  • Bid Compliance
  • Bid Protest Decisions
  • Bid Protest Jurisdiction
  • Bid Protests
  • Bidding Best Practices
  • Blanket Purchase Agreement
  • Blanket Purchase Order
  • Blog Articles
  • Bona Fide Needs Rule
  • Brand Name or Equal
  • Broad Agency Announcement
  • Brooks Act
  • Bundling or Consolidation
  • Buy American Act
  • Cancellation of a Solicitation
  • Capability of Contractor
  • CCR Registration
  • Certificate of Competency (COC)
  • Certification Requirements
  • Changes Clause
  • Clarifications
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Clearly Meritorious Protest
  • Clerical Error
  • Commercial Item Acquisition
  • Competitive Range
  • Compliance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Construction Design-Build
  • Construction Services
  • Contract Administration
  • Contract Modifications
  • Contracting Preference
  • Contractor Responsibility
  • Corporate Capability
  • Corrective Action
  • Cost Accounting System
  • Cost Evaluation
  • Cost Realism
  • Cost Reimbursement Contract
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off
  • Customary Commercial Practice
  • CVE
  • DCAA Audit
  • Debriefing
  • Default Termination
  • Deficient Price Proposal
  • Delivery Order jurisdiction
  • Delivery Schedule
  • Designated Employee Agent
  • Disclosure of Price
  • Disclosure of Source Selection-Sensitive Information
  • Discussions
  • Disqualification
  • Documentation of Evaluation
  • Domestic Production Requirement
  • Education Center Articles
  • Electronic Filing
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Evaluations
  • Events
  • Executive Order Compliance
  • Experience of Contractor
  • Experience Requirement
  • Facility Clearance
  • Fair Market Price
  • FASA
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Filing Deadlines
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • GAO Bid Protest Review
  • GAO Jurisdiction
  • GAO Standard of Review
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • Impaired Objectivity
  • In-Sourcing
  • Incentive Fee
  • Inclement Weather Delay
  • Incomplete Proposal
  • Incorporation by Reference
  • Incumbent Capture
  • Incumbent Status
  • Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
  • Individual Environmental Report
  • Industrial Mobilization
  • Innovations
  • Interested Party
  • Invitation for Bid
  • Invited Contractor
  • Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
  • Joint Venture
  • Key Personnel
  • Labor Hours
  • Labor Rate Pricing
  • Late Proposals
  • Late Submissions
  • Level of Effort
  • Licensing Requirements
  • Limitation on Subcontracting
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Lost Proposal
  • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
  • Mail-Box Rule
  • Management Planning
  • Market Research
  • MAS Contracts
  • Material Misrepresentation
  • Material Solicitation Amendment
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • Meaningful Discussions
  • Micro-Purchase Threshold
  • Minimum Requirements
  • Misleading Discussions
  • Mistake
  • Mitigation Strategy
  • Multiple Awards
  • NAICS Code
  • National Security
  • Negotiation
  • News
  • Non-Procurement Instruments
  • Novations
  • Offeror Representations
  • OMB Circular A-76
  • Option Exercise
  • Oral Presentations
  • Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • Page Limitations
  • Past Performance
  • Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
  • Performance Based Standards
  • Permits and Responsibilities
  • Personal Conflicts of Interest
  • Post-Award Changes to the Contract
  • Post-Protest Re-Evaluations
  • Practicable Alternative
  • Pre-Award Protest
  • Pre-award vs. Post-award Requirements
  • Pre-Qualification of Offerors
  • Pre-Solicitation Notice
  • Prejudice
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Evaluation
  • Price of FSS Task Order Quote
  • Price Realism
  • Price Reasonableness
  • Price Reduction
  • Procurement Announcement
  • Procurement Integrity
  • Product Testing
  • Proposal Acceptance Period
  • Proposal Detail
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Proposal Extension
  • Proposal Standards
  • Proposals
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reevaluation
  • Reevaluation Standards
  • Reimbursed Attorney's Fees
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Remedies
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • Scope of GAO Review
  • SDVOSB Set-Asides
  • Significant Issue Exception
  • Simplified Acquisition Procedures
  • Site Visit
  • Size Determination
  • Size Protest
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
  • Small Business Set-Asides
  • Small Business Subcontracting Goals
  • Sole-Source Award
  • Solicitation Amendment
  • Solicitation Requirements
  • Source Approval
  • Source Selection Authority
  • Source Selection Decision
  • Source Selection Plan
  • Sources Sought Notice
  • Staffing Plan
  • State and Local Requirements
  • Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Subcontract Protest
  • Subcontractor Experience
  • Suspension and Debarment
  • Taking Exception to RFP Requirements
  • Task Orders
  • Teaming Agreement
  • Technical Acceptability
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Unduly Restrictive Terms
  • Unequal Access to Information
  • Unequal Treatment of Offerors
  • Uniform Time Act of 1996
  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria
  • Unusual and Compelling Urgency
  • Use of Appropriated Funds
  • Veterans First
  • VIP Database
  • VOSB Set Asides
  • Wage Determination

Get Help


Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-703-556-0411
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2023 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411