TITLE:  	Container Products Corporation, B-280603.4, May 20, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-280603.4
DATE:  May 20, 1999
**********************************************************************
Container Products Corporation, B-280603.4, May 20, 1999

Decision

Matter of: Container Products Corporation

File: B-280603.4

Date: May 20, 1999

Joel Hughes for the protester.

Linda L. Shapiro, Esq., Steven E. Kellogg, Esq., Thompson Coburn, for Keco
Industries, Inc., and James H. Roberts III, Esq., Manatt, Phelps & Phillips,
for Gichner Shelter Systems, intervenors.

Samuel J. Galbo, Esq., and J. Page Turney, Esq., U.S. Marine Corps, for the
agency.

C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Exclusion of the protester's proposal from the competitive range was
reasonable where offeror failed to provide any schedule for first article
and production testing, or to discuss its capabilities for conducting such
tests, as required by the solicitation, but merely repeated solicitation
requirements and stated that it would comply with them, resulting in a
rating of "Unacceptable" for testing.

DECISION

Container Products Corporation (CPC) protests the elimination of its
proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No.
M67854-98-R-3005, issued by the United States Marine Corps for cargo
containers. The protester argues that the evaluation of its proposal was
unreasonable.

We deny the protest.

On June 10, 1998, the agency issued the RFP for production and delivery of
quadruple containers (QUADCONS), container racks, and horizontal connectors;
the QUADCONS at issue here are an intermediate-size cargo container designed
for shipment and transportation of military supplies and equipment. See
Container Prods. Corp., B-280603.2, Nov. 4, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 106 at 1.
Section F-1 of the RFP advised offerors of the agency's intention to issue
delivery orders for contract line item numbers (CLIN) 0001-0003, for first
articles, at award. Section F-2 provided for delivery of CLIN 0004,
production lots of QUADCONS, every 30 days beginning 180 days after issuance
of the first delivery order. RFP at B-2.

The solicitation provided for award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery,
indefinite-quantity contract to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable
offeror. RFP at F-1, L-11, and M-1 to M-2. The agency advised offerors that
it would not award a contract to an offeror with a rating lower than
"Acceptable" for any evaluated factor or subfactor. RFP at M-2. Section M-3
established the evaluation factors and areas of consideration, as follows:
Technical (three subfactors: weight, environmental, and compatibility/
interoperability); Management (two subfactors: manufacturing/ production
capability and facilities, and testing); Past Performance (two subfactors:
corporate experience and historical past performance); price; and
Subcontracting Plan.

Section L of the RFP advised offerors how to prepare and submit their
proposals. As relevant here, section L-6.2.2 for the subfactor of testing
advised as follows:

The Offeror shall adequately describe the planning/schedule and execution of
First Article Testing and Production Acceptance Testing set forth in [the
purchase descriptions]. The offeror shall demonstrate an ability to
successfully test the proposed CSC certified QUADCON container(s), and
associated hardware in accordance with First Article and Production
Acceptance Testing requirements set forth in the subject [purchase
descriptions] . . . .

The agency received proposals on January 22, 1999. One firm had failed to
provide a technical proposal; the agency referred the remaining proposals
for a technical evaluation. Business Clearance Memorandum, Mar. 3, 1999,
at 6. Evaluators rated CPC's management proposal "Marginal" for the first
subfactor, "manufacturing/ production capability and facilities," and
"Unacceptable" for the second subfactor, "testing." Evaluators found that
CPC did not provide a schedule for first article or production acceptance
testing but advised that it would plan such testing after award. The
evaluators noted that CPC's proposal merely repeated and acknowledged
requirements, without providing information on the protester's plans and
capabilities for such testing. [1] Agency Request for Dismissal, encl. 3,
QUADCON Technical Evaluation Discussion of Unacceptable Factors at 3. The
proposal received only two "Acceptable" ratings for the seven rated
subfactors. [2] Because they considered the proposal unacceptable under the
testing subfactor, evaluators rated the proposal "Unacceptable" overall. By
letter dated March 5, 1999, the agency advised CPC that its proposal had
been eliminated from the competitive range, and this protest followed.

CPC asserts that it submitted a proposal fully compliant with the RFP. The
protester contends that it did not provide a testing schedule because the
RFP did not contain firm dates for first article and production testing, and
had no requirement, either explicit or implicit, for submitting a generic
schedule--i.e., one stated in terms of days after award. Protester's Letter,
Mar. 18, 1999, at 4. In its protest, CPC acknowledges that it does not
possess the specialized facilities necessary for all required testing, but
indicates that it intends to subcontract this testing and that it has
received quotations from various testing laboratories. Id. In essence, CPC
argues that it promised to comply with RFP requirements and that this
promise should have been sufficient for the evaluators to find its proposal
technically acceptable. Id. In any event, the protester argues, it would be
in the best interest of the government to hold discussions with CPC, in
order to enhance competition. Protest, Mar. 8, 1999, at 2.

Initially, we note that, regardless of what the protester considers to be
the agency's best interest, FAR sect. 15.306(c) specifically allows an agency to
establish a competitive range consisting of only the most highly rated
proposals, and even, in certain circumstances, to further reduce the number
of proposals considered "for purposes of efficiency." In rating proposals,
the agency must evaluate proposals and assess their relative qualities
solely on the factors and subfactors stated in the solicitation; our Office
reviews the agency's evaluation of proposals and determination to exclude a
proposal from the competitive range solely for reasonableness and
consistency with the criteria and language of the solicitation. FAR
sect. 15.305(a); SDS Petroleum Prods., Inc., B-280430, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD
para. 59 at 4; WP Photographic Servs., B-278897.4, May 12, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 151
at 3. Here we find that the evaluation of CPC's proposal and its elimination
from the competitive range were reasonable and consistent with the
solicitation.

Section L-6.2.2 of the RFP, quoted above, clearly requires an offeror to
describe the planning and scheduling for first article and production
acceptance testing in its proposal, and to demonstrate its ability to
successfully test the containers. The RFP language required submission of
the planning and scheduling information with proposals; the plans and
schedule could not be developed after award as CPC contends. Each offeror
was to describe its plans in its proposal, and, as noted by CPC, such a
schedule would of necessity be generic--i.e., in terms of days after award.
CPC simply failed to meaningfully address this requirement in its proposal.
A blanket offer of compliance with solicitation requirements, as submitted
here by CPC, is not sufficient to meet a solicitation requirement for
specific information that an agency deems necessary to establish the
technical acceptability of a proposal. AMDATA, Inc., B-239216, Aug. 13,
1990, 90-2 CPD para. 123 at 5. Further, the protester acknowledges that it has
no facilities for conducting many of the required tests. It attempts here,
in this protest, for the first time, to provide information on its plans to
subcontract testing, information that was not in the proposal submitted to
the Marine Corps. Protester's Letter, Mar. 18, 1999, at 4; CPC Proposal, Tab
3, Testing, Jan. 19, 1999 (no mention of subcontracting). The protester
presents no basis for finding the agency's evaluation and decision to
exclude CPC's proposal from the competitive range to be unreasonable.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. CPC, in its proposal, stated that "CPC will plan, coordinate, and execute
all of the required First Article Testing . . . for the . . . container,
connector, and rack, as per the [RFP] requirements . . . ." CPC Proposal,
Tab 3, Testing, Jan. 19, 1999, at 1st unnumbered page.

2. The protester also received "Marginal" ratings for Past Performance
(corporate and historical) and for the compatibility/interoperability
subfactor of Technical. Business Clearance Memorandum, Mar. 3, 1999, at 8.