• 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

Mil-Mar Century Corporation, B-407644; B-407644.2; B-407644.3, January 17, 2013

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • January 23, 2013
  • ClarificationsDiscussionsExperience of ContractorPrice RealismProposal Evaluation
  • 0 Comments

Link:         GAO Opinion

Agency:    Department of the Army

Disposition:  Protest denied.

General Counsel P.C. Highlight:

GAO denied the protest of Mil-Mar Century Corporation regarding the award of a contract to The Entwistle Company, by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command Warren, under a request for proposals (RFP), to provide “Load Handling System Compatible Water Tank-Rack Systems,” commonly referred to as “hippos.”

The RFP was issued as the first competitive procurement for the hippo system and anticipated the award of a single fixed-price, three-year, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a maximum quantity of 845 hippo units, and an additional six units for the first article testing (FAT) purposes. The RFP stated that it would consider three factors: production capability; experience; and price. The production capability factor was the most important factor and considered five separate areas: manufacturing facilities; key tooling and equipment; production approach; time phased critical path; and letters of commitment. The experience factor also included five specific areas that would be considered: comparable items; technical manuals; delivery; low temperature requirements; and welding.

Mil-Mar first argued that the agency’s evaluation of Entwistle’s experience as relevant/low risk was unreasonable because Entwistle never constructed a hippo system. GAO stated that the agency’s evaluation was consistent with the evaluation criteria and not without a reasonable basis. The record demonstrated that the agency justified its overall rating of Entwistle’s experience as very relevant/very low risk under the comparable items criteria based on its assessment of Entwistle’s collective experience, and that the contracting officer went beyond the evaluation ratings to independently assess the risk represented by the offeror’s experience in this regard. GAO concluded that it would not second-guess the agency’s judgment, even if it might have reached a different conclusion, so long as the agency’s conclusion is not inconsistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria.

Mil-Mar next argued that Entwistle’s proposal should have been rejected as unrealistically priced, and that the agency conducted a flawed and inadequate price realism analysis. The record shows that the agency conducted a reasonable price realism analysis. In the SDD, the contracting officer acknowledged that a price realism analysis is not usually required in a competitive fixed-price procurement, but that based on Entwistle’s significantly lower price in comparison to the second lowest-priced offeror, he conducted a “comparison of cost elements, and a review of Entwistle’s labor hours and material type(s) to determine risk of successful performance at the offered price.” More specifically, the contracting officer analyzed Entwistle’s line item prices relating to materials over $500–including the 2,000-gallon tank, diesel engine, and frame–other parts below $500, labor hours, other direct costs, and other costs including overhead, general, and administrative and profit.

Finally, Mil-Mar alleged that the agency’s exchanges with Entwistle concerning additional price data constituted improper discussions with a single offeror. The agency maintained that the exchanges with Entwistle were mere clarifications, and did not constitute discussions. The agency argued that the exchanges were of a type expressly anticipated by the RFP, which provided that “the Government reserves the right, as a clarification under FAR 15.306(a), to request additional or more detailed price breakdown data.” The first three exchanges constituted the type of clarification expressly anticipated by the RFP and were within the scope of clarifications as set forth in FAR § 15.306(a). The agency’s fourth exchange asked Entwistle to “clarify how your proposed labor hours are adequate to carry out the steps necessary for production of the First Article Test items and production quantities.” Entwistle provided a two-sentence response, generally indicating that its labor hours were based on its understanding of the requirements and experience with design programs. Although the agency’s question sought additional narrative information, it was apparent to GAO that the exchange was intended to facilitate the agency’s understanding of the underlying components of Entwistle’s price proposal, and that Entwistle was not provided with an opportunity to revise its proposal. Such an exchange does not trigger an obligation to initiate discussions, since Entwistle’s response clarified, but did not modify, its proposal.

Share

Related Posts

Matter of Science Applications International Corporation

February 28, 2022

Matter of WRG Fire Training Simulation Systems, Inc.

January 12, 2022

Matter of: Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.

May 27, 2021

Matter of Patronus Systems, Inc.

December 3, 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