Argus & Black, Inc.
Highlights
Argus & Black, Inc., of Cary, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to Yorktown Systems Group, Inc., of Huntsville, Alabama, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W9124E-11-T-0061, issued by the Department of the Army for instructor support services.
We deny the protest.
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: Argus & Black, Inc.
File: B-405813
Date: January 3, 2012
A. Jeff Ifrah, Esq., for the protester.
J. Dale Gipson, Esq., and Michael P. Johnson, Esq., Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne P.C., for Yorktown Systems Group, Inc., the intervenor.
Robert B. Neill, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protest that awardees quotation failed to provide a fixed price for a particular contract line item (CLIN) is denied where the CLIN provided for the reimbursement of a vendors travel costs up to a not-to-exceed amount, to which the awardee did not take exception.
2. Protest that an awardees quotation was technically unacceptable is denied where the agency reasonably found the awardees quotation to be acceptable, consistent with the solicitations stated evaluation criteria.
DECISION
Argus & Black, Inc., of Cary, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to Yorktown Systems Group, Inc., of Huntsville, Alabama, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W9124E-11-T-0061, issued by the Department of the Army for instructor support services.[1]
We deny the protest.
BACKGROUND
The RFQ, issued under the commercial item and simplified acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 13, provided for the award of a fixed-price contract to train personnel in security force assistance, Iraqi and Afghan cultural awareness, and personnel recovery. RFQ at 27; RFQ amend. 1, at 3; Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 2. The PWS requires the vendor to provide qualified instructors, including a mobile training team, in several subject areas. See PWS at 2-18. Training was to be provided in accordance with relevant field manuals, guidance documents, and other requirements specified in the PWS. See id. For example, personnel recovery training was required to be based on the Armys Field Manual No. 3-50.1, Army Personnel Recovery, and taught in accordance with the U.S. Armed Forces Commands (FORSCOM) pre-deployment training guidance, as well as additional program instructions to be provided by the agency. See id. at 18.
Offerors were informed that award would be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis considering the following evaluation factors: price, technical, and past performance. RFQ at 9. With regard to the technical factor, the RFQ required vendors to provide a detailed training methodology and document their ability to train students in accordance with the PWS and military policies and procedures. See id. With regard to price, vendors were instructed to quote fixed prices for four contract line items (CLINS 0001, 0002, 0004, and 0005). CLIN 0003 provided for the reimbursement of a vendors actual costs for travel up to a not-to-exceed amount of $200,000 in accordance with Joint Travel Regulations and the PWS. Id. at 3-5: PWS at 20. In response to questions from vendors, the agency advised them to use $200,000 as a plug number for the CLIN 0003 travel costs. RFQ amend. 1, Questions/Answers, at 2.
The agency received five quotations, including those of Yorktown and Argus. Yorktowns and Arguss quotations were both found to be technically acceptable, and their price quotations were evaluated by the CO and the contract specialist. See Contracting Officers (CO) Statement at 2-3; Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, Evaluation Memorandum, at 1-3. Yorktowns quotation was evaluated as the lowest priced at $1,754,980, and Arguss quotation was evaluated as the second lowest at $1,760,075. Id. With respect to the price evaluation, the Army used the $200,000 plug number in evaluating vendors travel costs under CLIN 0003. COs Supp. Statement at 1; Supp. AR at 5. As pertinent here, Yorktown stated in its price quotation that [i]n performance of the contract, travel will be invoiced on a cost reimbursable basis; [in accordance with] the [Joint Travel Regulations], [DELETED] by Yorktown Systems Group. See Yorktowns Quotation at 16.
Award was made to Yorktown as the vendor with the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quotation, and this protest followed.
DISCUSSION
Argus complains that Yorktowns quotation should have been rejected because the awardee did not offer a fixed price for CLIN 0003. Specifically, the protester argues that Yorktowns quotation, which stated that the vendors travel costs would have a [DELETED], was contrary to the RFQs requirement for fixed prices. See Protesters Comments and Supp. Protest at 3-4. The protester also contends that in evaluating Yorktowns price quotation the Army should have added [DELETED] to the $200,000 plug number for travel costs under CLIN 0003 to reflect Yorktowns [DELETED]. Id. Argus states that adding [DELETED] to Yorktowns evaluated price would result in the protesters evaluated price being lower than Yorktowns. See id. at 3; Protesters Supp. Comments at 3.
A quotation that fails to conform to material terms and conditions of a solicitation should be considered unacceptable and may not form the basis for the issuance of a task order. Muddy Creek Oil and Gas, Inc., B-296836, Aug. 9, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 143 at 2. The requirement to propose fixed prices is a material term or condition of a solicitation requiring such pricing. Solers, Inc., B-404032.3, B-404032.4, Apr. 6, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶83 at 4; Marine Pollution Control Corp., B-270172, Feb. 13, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 73 at 2-3. Where a solicitation requests proposals on a fixed-price basis, a price offer that is conditional and not firm cannot be considered for award. Id.; SunEdison, LLC, B-298583, B-298583.2, Oct. 30, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 168 at 5.
Here, contrary to the protesters premise, the RFQ did not request the quotation of a fixed price for CLIN 0003. Rather, as noted above, the RFQ provided that vendors would be reimbursed their costs up to a not-to-exceed amount of $200,000 under this CLIN 0003 in accordance with the Joint Travel Regulations and the PWS.[2] See RFQ at 4; PWS at 20. Nothing in Yorktowns quotation indicates that the awardee took exception to solicitation provision that the firm would be reimbursed its travel costs up the not-to-exceed amount. We find that the Army reasonably evaluated all vendors quotations using the $200,000 plug number that was provided for CLIN 0003. See AR, Tab 11, Quotation Abstract.
Argus also complains that Yorktowns quotation did not satisfy certain PWS requirements.[3] See Protesters Comments and Supp. Protest at 4-5; Protesters Supp. Comments at 3-4. In this respect, the protester states that the evaluators expressed concern over Yorktowns personnel recovery training and failure to mention the relevant guidance, whereas the evaluators noted Arguss proposed FORSCOM personnel recovery training. See Protesters Comments and Supp. Protest at 5.
Simplified acquisition procedures are designed to, among other things, reduce administrative costs, promote efficiency and economy in contracting, and avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors. FAR § 13.002; Sawtooth Enters., Inc., B-281218, Dec. 7, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 139 at 3. When using simplified acquisition procedures, an agency must conduct the procurement consistent with a concern for fair and equitable competition and must evaluate quotations in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. In reviewing protests of an allegedly improper simplified acquisition evaluation, we examine the record to determine whether the agency met this standard and executed its discretion reasonably. Computers Universal, Inc., B-297552, Feb. 14, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 42 at 4-5; DOER Marine, B-295087, Dec. 21, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 252 at 3.
Here, we find that the agency reasonably found that Yorktowns quotation was technically acceptable. Although the agencys evaluators noted qualitative differences between the vendors technical quotations, both firms quotations were found to satisfy the RFQ requirements and to be technically acceptable. With respect to the protesters contention that Yorktown would not satisfy the requirement to provide training in accordance with FORSCOM guidance, the Army states that, although Yorktown did not specifically refer to the FORSCOM guidance in its quotation, the awardee fully explained its instruction methodology and how it would ensure that its training would be consistent with all applicable policy guidance.[4] Supp. AR at 9. Based upon this, the Army found Yorktowns quotation to be acceptable.[5] Although Argus disagrees with the agencys judgment in this regard, the protesters disagreement does not establish that the agency acted unreasonably. See Citywide Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12, B-281287.13, Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD ¶ 6 at 10-11.
The protest is denied.
Lynn H. Gibson
General Counsel
[1] Although the protest here concerns the placement of an order under an RFQ, the RFQ and the parties refer to the award of a contract as does this decision for the sake of consistency.
[2] Argus does not contend that Yorktowns quotation would violate either the Joint Travel Regulations or the specific provision of the PWS providing for the reimbursement of travel costs.
[3] Argus initially protested that Yorktown did not have relevant past performance, that the agency failed to consider risks associated with Yorktowns compensation for course instructions and with Yorktowns proposed hours of instruction, and that Yorktowns price was not reasonable. Protest at 1-2. The Army responded to these arguments in its report. Because the protester did not in its comments address the agencys responses, we consider these issues to be abandoned. Washington-Harris Group, B-401794, B-401794.2, Nov. 16, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 230 at 5 n.3.
[4] Yorktowns technical quotation stated that its instructors would provide instruction in personnel recovery operations as required, and listed five policies and procedures that Yorktown would use in refining or developing training materials in that regard. Yorktowns Quotation at 14.
[5] The Army notes that there was no requirement in the RFQ that vendors repeat the title of specific training policies. Supp. AR at 8.