Hawkeye Glove Manufacturing, Inc.
Highlights
Hawkeye Glove Manufacturing, Inc. (HGMI) protests the award of a contract to Nationwide Glove Company (NGC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO100-06-R-0057, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for quantities of gloves.
B-299741, Hawkeye Glove Manufacturing, Inc., August 2, 2007
Decision
Matter of: Hawkeye Glove Manufacturing, Inc.
Marc Lamer, Esq., Kostos & Lamer, PC, for the protester.
Carol L. O'Riordan, Esq., The O'Riordan Bethel Law Firm, LLP, an intervenor.
Maria Ventresca, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
Julie D. Miller, and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Where solicitation divided requirement for gloves into two portions--one set aside for small business and the other unrestricted--and stated that agency intended to make multiple awards, agency nevertheless was not required to make multiple awards; agency properly awarded both portions of requirement to offeror whose proposal received highest technical score and offered lowest total price.
DECISION
Hawkeye Glove Manufacturing, Inc. (HGMI) protests the award of a contract to Nationwide Glove Company (NGC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO100-06-R-0057, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for quantities of gloves.
The RFP, issued on
In the event that the proposals received for the 60% portion are not found to be technically acceptable and/or priced fair and reasonably, the Government reserves the right to dissolve this set aside portion and make the 60% portion unrestricted. It is the Government's intention on this acquisition to make multiple awards.
The agency received three proposals for the set'aside
portion, including HGMI's and NGC's, and four for the unrestricted portion,
including HGMI's and NGC's. The source
selection authority (SSA) evaluated the proposals for each portion separately,
and determined that NGC's proposals for both were technically superior to
HGMI's and the other offeror's proposals.
NGC's proposed prices also were the lowest for both portions; for the
set-aside portion, its evaluated unit price was $13.93, as compared to HGMI's second-lowest
price of $14.52, and for the unrestricted portion, its price was $13.93, as
compared to HGMI's second-lowest price of $14.74. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Source
Selection Decision Document, at 2. In
addition, NGC offered a price of $13.79 for the total quantities under both
portions.
Although the solicitation states, It is the Government's intention on this acquisition to make multiple awards, there is no place in the solicitation that mandates that multiple awards shall be made. Thusly, I find that awarding 100 percent of the contract to Nationwide Glove Company represents a better value to the Government and a very good probability of successful contract performance.
On
HGMI asserts that awarding NGC both portions of the requirement
was inconsistent with the agency's stated intent in the RFP to make multiple
awards, and therefore was improper. HGMI
alleges that it was prejudiced by the government's deviation from the clear
intention of the solicitation.
HGMI's argument is without merit. Even where a solicitation specifically states
an intention to award multiple contracts, it does not impose on the agency a
legal obligation to make more than one award.
The METEC Group, B'290073, B-290073.2, May 20, 2002,
2002 CPD para. 86 at 2; Allied-Signal Aerospace Co., B-240938.2, Jan. 18,
1991, 91-1 CPD para. 58 at 2. Rather, an
agency's expression of intent merely demonstrates its expectation that it will make
multiple awards. Canadian Commercial
Corp./Liftking Indus., Inc., B-282334 et al.,
In any case, we point out that the RFP contained a
provision--clause 52.216-9P23(a)--stating that The Government intends to make
multiple awards under this solicitation.... The Government, however, reserves the
right to make only one award. AR, Tab
2, at 41. Based on this language, we
think it was clear that the agency anticipated making multiple awards, but did
not intend to bind itself to do so.
Moreover, even if we agreed that the agency could be bound by a stated
intent to make multiple awards, this language, at a minimum, created an
ambiguity on the face of the RFP as to the agency's intent. HGMI could not merely adopt one of the
alternative interpretations but, rather, was required to seek resolution of
this ambiguity in a protest filed prior to the closing time for receipt of
initial proposals. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2
(a)(1) (2007); Deco Sec. Servs., B-294516,
Finally, as for HGMI's claim that it would have offered a 100-percent pricing option, as did NGC, had it been aware of the possibility of a single award, nothing in the solicitation prohibited offerors from providing such pricing. Further, as discussed, the agency's reserving the right to make a single award actually put HGMI on express notice of the possibility of a single award. We note that HGMI concedes that it has previously submitted pricing based on 100 percent of the award in other solicitations that indicated multiple awards might be made. Protest at 4'5. We conclude that there is no basis for objecting to the award to NGC.
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
[1]
HGMI initially argued that the requirement is a partial small business set'aside
that was subject to Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 19-502.3, under which, it
asserted, HGMI would be entitled to award of the set-aside portion. The agency responded in its report that this
was a total small business set-aside, not a partial set'aside, and that
the cited provisions did not apply. In
its response, the protestor does not specifically dispute the government's
position. We therefore consider it
abandoned. See International
Marine Prods., Inc., B-296127,
[2]
HGMI attempts to distinguish our prior decisions based on the different facts
involved. However, our decisions in this
area are not fact-specific. Thus, for
example, while HGMI asserts that our decision in Outdoor Venture Corp.,
B'288894.2, Dec. 19, 2001, 2002 CPD para. 13, is distinguishable from
its protest because, there, only one technically acceptable offer was received,
our decision was not based on the number of proposals received. Rather, we held, as a general proposition,
that a statement of intent to make multiple awards expresses only an
expectation, and does not create a legal obligation to make multiple
awards.