TITLE:  Landoll Corporation, B-291381; B-291381.2; B-291381.3, December 23, 2002
BNUMBER:  B-291381; B-291381.2; B-291381.3
DATE:  December 23, 2002
**********************************************************************
Landoll Corporation, B-291381; B-291381.2; B-291381.3, December 23, 2002

   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:    Landoll Corporation
    
File:             B-291381; B-291381.2; B-291381.3
    
Date:              December 23, 2002
    
Darcy V. Hennessy, Esq., Moore Hennessy & Freeman, for the protester.
Anthony H. Anikeeff, Esq., and Brian W. Baker, Esq., Bracewell &
Patterson, for Watkins Aircraft  Support Products, Inc., the intervenor.
John D. Inazu, Esq., and P. Alan Luthy, Esq., Department of the Air Force,
for the agency.
John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
1.  Agency reasonably evaluated awardee's past performance as
*exceptional/high confidence* and protester's past performance as
*satisfactory/confidence* where record shows that awardee's exemplary past
performance was on *very relevant* contracts, while protester's generally
positive past performance was on *semi‑relevant* contracts.
    
2.  Contention that agency acted improperly in seeking clarification of
one matter from awardee but not requesting clarification of other matters
from protester is denied where agency is not generally required to seek
clarification from all offerors and protester has not explained how its
competitive position would have been affected if agency had sought the
clarifications at issue here.
    
3.  Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's and
awardee's proposals is denied where the record shows the agency's
evaluation of the proposals was reasonable and the protester's contentions
represent only its disagreement with the agency's evaluation.
    
4.  Protest that awardee's price was ambiguous is denied where the
proposal was clear with regard to its proposed prices and conforms to the
terms of the RFP.
    
DECISION
    
Landoll Corporation protests the award of a contract to Watkins Aircraft
Support Products, Inc. (WASP) under request for proposals (RFP) No.
FO8635-02-R-0045, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for universal
munitions trailers (UMT).  Landoll argues that the agency's evaluation of
proposals was unreasonable.
    
We deny the protest.
    
BACKGROUND
    
The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity
contract for a minimum of two prototype UMTs, with options for production
quantities of an estimated 214 UMTs (with associated items) per year over
an 8-year period.[1] 
The solicitation stated that award would be made to the offeror submitting
the proposal representing the best value to the government, considering
the following evaluation factors:  past performance, mission capability
(comprised of two subfactors--UMT technical design and manufacturing
capability), proposal risk, and cost/price.[2]  The RFP stated that the
past performance, mission capability, and proposal risk factors were equal
in importance, followed by the cost/price factor, and that the evaluation
factors other than cost/price, when combined, were significantly more
important than cost/price.  The two mission capability subfactors were
equal in importance.
    
The agency received 18 proposals, including Landoll's and WASP's, by the
RFP's closing date.  Landoll's proposal was rated as
*satisfactory/confidence* under the past performance factor,
*green/acceptable* with *moderate* risk under the UMT technical design
subfactor and *green/acceptable* with *low* risk under the manufacturing
capability subfactor, at an evaluated price of $33,507,022.[3]  WASP's
proposal was rated as *exceptional/high confidence* under the past
performance factor, *blue/exceptional* with *low* risk under the UMT
technical design subfactor and *green/acceptable* with *low* risk under
the manufacturing capability subfactor, at an evaluated price of
$44,063,525.  AR at 4-5.
    
The agency found, in comparing the evaluation results, that WASP's
proposal was the *strongest* of the proposals received under both the UMT
technical design and manufacturing capability subfactors of the mission
capability factor.  The agency also found that WASP had the *best past
performance rating out of all the offerors,* and that its evaluated price
was reasonable given its consistency with the government's estimate of
$44.7 million.  AR, Tab 19, Proposal Analysis Report, at 5.  In the source
selection decision, the source selection authority (SSA) explained, among
other things, that the technical advantages associated with WASP's
proposal, as well as WASP's *superior past performance . . . plainly
outweigh the difference in price* between WASP's proposal and those of the
lower-priced, lower-rated proposals, including Landoll's.  AR, Tab 20,
Source Selection Decision, at 5-6.  The agency subsequently awarded WASP a
contract under the RFP, and, after requesting and receiving a debriefing,
Landoll filed this protest. 
    
ANALYSIS
    
Past Performance Evaluation
    
The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of Landoll's and WASP's
proposals as *satisfactory/confidence* and *exceptional/high confidence,*
respectively, under the past performance evaluation factor.
    
The evaluation of a firm's past performance is generally a matter within
the discretion of the contracting agency.  In reviewing an agency's
evaluation of past performance, we will not reevaluate proposals, but
instead will examine an agency's evaluation to ensure that it was
reasonable and consistent with the solicitation and with applicable
statutes and regulations.  Acepex Mgmt. Corp., B-283080 et al.,  Oct. 4,
1999, 99-2 CPD P: 77 at 3.
    
The RFP specified that under the past performance factor the agency would
consider past performance information regarding government or commercial
contracts performed during the past 5 years that involved *the development
or production of non-powered carriers or transporters of sensitive or
dangerous material with a contract value greater than $500,000.*  RFP at
M-2.  The solicitation added that in addition to being rated for past
performance, each contract cited by an offeror would be assessed for
relevance to the UMT effort, and would receive ratings of very relevant,
relevant, semi-relevant, or not relevant.  RFP at M-2-3.  The RFP stated
here that *[i]n determining relevance, consideration will be given to
product similarity, product complexity, similar technology, type of effort
(development, production, repair, etc.), contract scope and type, and
schedule.*  RFP at M-2.  In order to facilitate this aspect of the
evaluation, the RFP requested that each offeror submit information
regarding five contracts, and stated that the agency *may conduct
clarifications, as necessary, to provide the offerors past performance
information, or address minor clerical issues.*  RFP at M-3.
    
Landoll's past performance proposal listed five contracts.  The agency
found that one of the contracts had been performed in 1991 and thus could
not be considered under the terms of the RFP because performance had been
completed more than 5 years ago.  AR at 23; Tab 8, Landoll's Proposal,
Past Performance Volume, at 9.  The agency found that another of the
listed contracts, performed by Landoll as a subcontractor had a dollar
value of considerably less than the $500,000 required by the RFP for
consideration.  AR at 23; Tab 8, Landoll's Proposal, Past Performance
Volume, at 1.  A third contract had been so recently awarded that the
reference was unable to provide any past performance data.  AR, Tab 14,
Past Performance Survey Questionnaire on General Services Administration
Schedule Contract.  The two remaining contracts listed by Landoll, one of
which was for a *Truck Mounted Deicing Unit,* and the other for a
*wrecker* where Landoll had performed as a subcontractor, were found by
the agency to be only *semi-relevant* to the UMT effort.  AR, Tab 14, Memo
for Record; Tab 18, SSA Briefing by Performance Risk Assessment Group
(PRAG), at 29.  The information provided by the references for these
contracts, as well as information regarding one of these contracts
obtained from the relevant contractor performance assessment reporting
system (CPARS), characterized Landoll's past performance as ranging from
*satisfactory* to *exceptional.*  AR, Tab 14, Past Performance
Questionnaires and CPARS.  The agency considered all of the above
information in arriving at its overall rating of *satisfactory/confidence*
for Landoll's proposal under the past performance factor. 
    
The record contradicts Landoll's assertion that the contracts cited in its
proposal *are very relevant to the present solicitation.*  See Protest at
9.  As reasonably determined by the agency and discussed above, three of
the contracts could not be considered by the agency under the terms of the
solicitation or because there was no reportable performance.  With regard
to the two remaining contracts, the protester fails to point to anything
in the evaluation record in support of Landoll's position that its
proposal should have received a rating higher than it did under the past
performance factor.  See Protester's Comments/Supplemental Protest at 8
(*[r]ather than restate its arguments raised in its original protest,
Landoll merely incorporates by reference its protest grounds stated in its
original protest and states that it does not agree with the positions
taken by the Agency*).  Based upon the record here, the agency's
evaluation of Landoll's proposal as *satisfactory/confidence* under the
past performance factor was reasonable.
    
In contrast to Landoll's proposal, WASP's past performance proposal
included relatively detailed information regarding five contracts with a
dollar value in excess of $500,000 that it had performed in the past
5 years, with a narrative explanation and matrix detailing the relevance
of WASP's performance of the contracts to the UMT development and
production effort.  Each contract had been performed for a commercial
airline, and involved the development, design or redesign, and/or
production of *non-powered carriers; specifically airline cargo type
trailers* for use by airlines.  AR, Tab 7, WASP's Past Performance Volume,
at 1-10. 
    
The agency determined that because each of the contracts was for the
upgrade and/or production of trailers similar to the UMTs required here,
and satisfied the RFP's $500,000 dollar value threshold and past 5-year
performance requirement, each contract was *very relevant* to the work
required under this RFP.  The agency also noted that WASP's references for
these contracts consistently stated, among other things, that WASP had
exceeded their requirements with early deliveries and high quality
products.  AR, Tab 13, WASP's Past Performance Questionnaires; Tab 18, SSA
Briefing by PRAG, at 45-47.  The record reflects that the agency
considered
the relevance of the contracts cited by WASP to the work required under
this solicitation, as well as the numerous positive comments regarding
WASP's performance of these contracts, in arriving at its past performance
rating of
WASP's proposal as *exceptional/high confidence.*
    
The protester raises a number of complaints regarding the agency's
evaluation of WASP's past performance, claiming that WASP provided *no
relevant past performance.*  Protester's Comments/Supplemental Protest at
5-6.  Specifically,
the protester argues that WASP's past performance was *grossly overrated*
by the agency, given that the largest contract dollar value cited by WASP
was $1.7 million.  Id. at 4-5.  The protester also contends that WASP's
past performance proposal does not demonstrate that WASP has ever
performed a contract requiring the development of trailers for the
transport of *sensitive or dangerous material,* or that WASP has
*performed a developmental contract* or any other contract *any where near
the complexity of this contract.*  Id. at 5-6.  The protester states in
this regard that *it appears [WASP] generally transports standard airline
shipments--a far cry from the transport of nuclear weapons.*  Protester's
Comments on Agency's Supplemental Report (ASR) at 7.  The protester
concludes that that the agency unreasonably evaluated WASP's past
performance as *very relevant,* and because of this, unreasonably
evaluated WASP's proposal under the past performance factor as
*exceptional/high confidence.*
    
Although the protester may be correct that WASP's past performance does
not consist of trailers for the transport of nuclear weapons or the
performance of contracts of the dollar amount contemplated here, we cannot
find that the agency's conclusions regarding WASP's past performance lack
a reasonable basis.  The fact remains that WASP's proposal evidences that
it has performed numerous contracts for the production of trailers used to
transport cargo at airfields, and that each of WASP's contracts considered
by the agency exceeded the $500,000 value threshold established by the
RFP.  Although these referenced contracts were not to provide these UMTs
(which have yet to be developed), the contracts are sufficiently similar
that WASP's past performance could reasonably be considered *very
relevant.* 
Nor do we find unreasonable the Air Force's assumption that because the
Air Force *commonly transports munitions parts via commercial cargo,* and
*WASP manufactures a large portion of the ground support equipment
utilized by U.S. air cargo companies,* that WASP has developed or produced
trailers used to transport *sensitive or dangerous material.*  ASR at 8;
RFP at M-2.
    
Although the protester is correct that the contracts cited by WASP were
not *true developmental contracts, but merely [involved] the customization
of an existing model,* see Protester's Comments on ASR at 7, this in
itself does not render unreasonable the agency's assessment that these
contracts in some instances involved the development or redesign and
production of trailers.  The RFP defined relevance *as those efforts
related to the development or production of non-powered carriers or
transporters of sensitive or dangerous material.*  RFP at M-2 (emphasis
added).  The RFP did not, as the protester asserts, define relevance as
the development and production of such trailers.  Moreover, the record
reflects that in performing the contracts cited by WASP in its past
performance proposal, WASP made a number of design changes to its trailers
to meet the requirements of its customer.  In sum, while WASP has not
designed and produced UMTs previously,
we find reasonable the agency's assessment of WASP's considerable past
performance with regard to trailers used by the airline industry as being
*very relevant.*
    
The protester also complains that the agency improperly considered the
past performance of a proposed subcontractor of WASP in assessing WASP's
past performance.  The protester points out that the RFP stated that the
past performance of the *prime contractor and [its] major subcontractors*
would be considered, and argues that the agency acted improperly in
considering the past performance of a subcontractor that WASP did not
identify as a *major subcontractor.* 
    
WASP's proposal stated that it *has contracted with [the subcontractor] .
. . to provide professional engineering services for the UMT design,
development and testing phase.*  AR, Tab 7, WASP's Mission Capability
Proposal, at 1.  WASP's proposal provided elsewhere that WASP would *not
have any major subcontractors or teammates for this effort.*  AR, Tab 7,
WASP's Proposal, Administrative Information, at 2.
    
In order to clarify the subcontractor's proposed role, the agency issued a
notice to WASP asking that it *[p]lease clarify the relationship (i.e., 
major subcontractor, subcontractor, vendor, etc) of [the proposed
subcontractor].*  ASR, attach. 2, Agency Evaluation Notice, Clarification
(Aug. 17, 2002).  WASP responded by explaining that
    
[the subcontractor] is a subcontractor secured by [WASP] to assist in
various design functions, i.e. Finite Element Analysis, Dynamic Loads
Simulations.  [The subcontractor] is not a business partner with [WASP]
and as a percentage of the entire project dollar value, they are very
small.
ASR, attach. 1, WASP's Response to Clarification Request.  The agency
determined that WASP's clarification response confirmed the evaluators'
belief that the subcontractor would be *responsible for critical design
functions,* and that although WASP stated that the subcontractor's work
expressed as a percentage of total project dollars would be very small,
the subcontractor's role *would in fact be vital to WASP's success or
failure in the UMT effort.*  Contracting Officer's Statement (Nov. 13,
2002) at 10.  Accordingly, the agency argues that its consideration of the
subcontractor's past performance (which was characterized as *excellent*
on the CPARS obtained by the Air Force evaluators) was reasonably based. 
    
The record reflects that the agency placed little emphasis on the
subcontractor's past performance in its evaluation of WASP's proposal. 
For example, although the subcontractor's CPARS ratings were presented by
the evaluators during their briefing of the SSA, the majority of past
performance information presented, and in fact all of the *positive
aspects* and comments regarding the agency's evaluation of WASP's past
performance, relate to the five contracts performed by WASP and detailed
in its proposal.  AR, Tab 18, SSA Briefing by PRAG, at 45.  With this in
mind, and given the agency's reasonable view that the subcontractor's role
will be critical to WASP's successful performance of the contract, we
cannot find unreasonable the agency's limited consideration of the CPARS
it obtained bearing on the subcontractor's past performance.
    
Clarification Request to Awardee
    
Referencing the above-mentioned clarification request made to WASP
regarding its subcontractor, the protester next complains that the agency
issued a clarification request only to WASP, rather than to all offerors,
including Landoll.  The protester points out that during the debriefing
the agency commented that it had four clarification items for Landoll, and
contends that the agency's failure to seek these clarifications
constituted the unequal treatment of offerors. 
    
Clarifications are *limited exchanges* between the government and offerors
that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.  Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) S: 15.306(a)(1).  Such exchanges may allow
offerors to clarify certain aspects of proposals or to resolve minor
clerical errors.  FAR S: 15.306(a)(2).  In contrast to discussions,
requesting clarification from one offeror does not trigger a requirement
that the agency seek clarification from other offerors.[4]  See Priority
One Servs., Inc., B-288836, B-288836.2, Dec. 17, 2001, 2002 CPD P: 79 at
5; Global Assocs. Ltd., B-271693; B-271693.2, Aug. 2, 1996, 96-2 CPD P:
100 at 4.  While we recognize that a situation might arise in which it
would be unfair to request clarification from one offeror but not from
another, here, given that Landoll has failed to explain, and we cannot
see, how the protester's competitive position would have been affected if
the agency had sought clarification from Landoll, we find no merit to this
aspect of Landoll's protest.
    
Evaluation of UMT Technical Design Subfactor of the Mission Capability
Factor
    
The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal as
*green/acceptable* with *moderate* risk and WASP's proposal as
*blue/exceptional* with *low* risk under the UMT technical design
subfactor to the mission capability factor.
    
In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is not
our role to reevaluate proposals.  Rather, our Office examines the record
to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord
with the RFP criteria.  Abt Assocs., Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1
CPD P: 223 at 4.  The protester's mere disagreement with the agency's
judgment does not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable.  UNICCO
Gov't Servs., Inc., B-277658, Nov. 7, 1997, 97-2 CPD P: 134 at 7.
    
With regard to the agency's evaluation of proposals under the mission
capability factor, the RFP explained that it would be assessing *the
offeror's ability to develop and build trailers as required by this
contract.*  For the UMT technical design subfactor, proposals would be
evaluated to determine if the proposal demonstrated an understanding of
the specification requirements and whether the proposed design met or
exceeded the requirements set forth in the RFP.  RFP at M-3. 
    
The protester contends that the agency *overlooked the many strengths of
Landoll's proposal* in evaluating the proposal under the UMT technical
design subfactor.  Specifically, the protester argues that its design was
*based upon the use of [DELETED]; the use of [DELETED] springs and axles
[DELETED]; brakes [DELETED]; and [DELETED] tires that [DELETED].  Protest
at 6, 8.  The protester also complains that while certain of the
individual evaluator worksheets reference as a strength Landoll's proposed
trailer weight of [DELETED] pounds (which is [DELETED] pounds below the
maximum allowable trailer weight), that strength was not carried through
to the final evaluation summary or presented to the SSA. 
    
With regard to Landoll's claims regarding its proposed springs and axles,
the agency points out that the RFP did not specify any particular
requirements for these components.  Instead the RFP mandated that the
trailer have an overall *load capacity of 12,000 pounds for conventional
munitions and 8,000 for nuclear munitions,* and Landoll proposed to meet
but not to exceed this requirement. 
RFP, attach. 1, Performance Specification for UMT, at 11; AR, Tab 8,
Landoll's Mission Suitability Proposal, at 4.  The agency adds that in any
event, Landoll's claimed strengths regarding its proposed springs and
axles could not be considered strengths by the evaluators because, based
upon Landoll's proposal, these items would have no effect on the overall
[DELETED] trailer.  AR at 10‑11.  The protester does not
substantively respond to the agency's explanation regarding this aspect of
its evaluation.
    
As to Landoll's claims regarding its proposed brakes, the agency states,
and Landoll's proposal reflects, that Landoll's proposal only repeats,
virtually verbatim, the applicable RFP requirements, adding only that its
proposed UMT's brakes would *provide sufficient stopping force for the
fully loaded trailer.*  RFP, attach. 1, Performance Specification for UMT,
at 27; AR, Tab 8, Landoll's Mission Capability Proposal, at 9-10.
    
The agency explains that Landoll's proposed use of [DELETED] tires did not
merit a strength, because the characteristics which Landoll points to as
strengths were either already required by the specifications or were not
supported as strengths in Landoll's proposal.  Here too, the protester
does not respond to the agency's explanation.
    
With regard to Landoll's use of [DELETED], the agency points out that
Landoll's proposal did not provide complete dimensions regarding the
[DELETED], nor identify [DELETED].*  AR at 9.  The agency similarly
explains, and the record reflects, that Landoll was not ultimately given
credit for its lower proposed trailer weight because Landoll had not
provided *drawings, analyses, or calculations of the trailer to
substantiate the ability of the [DELETED] design to meet the [trailer's]
load capacity requirements.*  AR, Tab 12, Technical Design Subfactor
Summary Document--Landoll, at 6; ASR at 2. 
    
Contrary to the protester's assertions, we cannot find fault in the
agency's position that Landoll's proposal did not merit a
*blue/exceptional* rating where its proposed UMT trailer design did not in
actuality exceed any RFP specifications and its other claimed strengths
were unsupported by any engineering data or analysis.  Although the
protester asserts that the inclusion of such analyses in its proposal was
not mandated by the solicitation and that it should have been reasonably
apparent that such analyses must have been done in order for Landoll to
propose a trailer design at all, we find reasonable the agency's desire to
have such claims supported in the proposal in order for the proposal to be
found *blue/exceptional.*
    
As mentioned previously, WASP's proposal was considered by the agency to
be the *strongest* submitted under the UMT technical design subfactor and
was the only proposal to be rated as *blue/exceptional* under this
subfactor.  The agency identified a number of strengths in WASP's
proposal, including its UMT's ability to carry considerably more equipment
than the minimum requirements set forth in the solicitation or the UMT
designs proposed by other offerors.  AR, Tab 11, Technical Design
Subfactor Summary Document--WASP, at 10; Tab 18, SSA Briefing, at 89;
Tab 19, Source Selection Decision, at 5.  In this regard, WASP's proposal
included detailed explanations, analyses, and drawings, including
[DELETED] regarding WASP's proposed UMT's ability to transport, in a
number of instances, twice as much equipment as required by the
solicitation.  AR, Tab 19, Source Selection Decision, at 5; see Tab 11,
Technical Design Subfactor Summary Document--WASP, at 10-11; Tab 18, SSA
Briefing, at 89-91.  The agency found that *the WASP design was the only
design capable of carrying mixed loads consisting of air-to-air and
air-to-ground munitions,* and that *[b]ecause of the increased load
capacity of the WASP design, fewer trailers will be required in the field
to load aircraft.*  In this regard, the agency added that *[a] 30%
reduction in the number of trailers is estimated.*  The agency found that
WASP's UMT design *can also increase the efficiency of the loading process
out in the field.*  In this regard, the agency noted that *[b]ecause of
the trailer's increased load capacity, multiple munitions can be loaded
onto an aircraft simultaneously.*  AR, Tab 19, Source Selection Decision,
at 5. 
    
The agency also found the lower weight of WASP's UMT [DELETED], in
comparison to certain other UMTs proposed and the RFP's maximum allowable
trailer weight of 3,500 pounds, will make it easier for the UMTs to be
moved manually by two people.  Id.; Tab 11, Technical Design Subfactor
Summary Document--WASP, at 10.  Finally, the agency noted that it viewed
WASP's proposal as having *low* risk, given that the proposal provided
that WASP *had [DELETED] all loads and equipment* and *performed [DELETED]
to ensure load capacity and nuclear certification.* 
AR, Tab 19, Source Selection Decision, at 5.
    
Landoll argues that the agency's conclusions regarding the benefits
associated with the additional capacity of WASP's trailer were not
reasonably based.  For example, the protester contends (without citation)
that *standard operating procedure calls for each air craft to carry a
trailer with the weapons,* and *[t]herefore, that a trailer could carry
enough weapons for two aircraft, would be meaningless.*  The protester
adds that, in its view, *unless the trailer carried double the amount of
weapons called for [in the RFP],* it *would be of no additional benefit
because one trailer would not load two air craft.*  Protester's Comments
on ASR at 10.   
    
These arguments, which appear to be based entirely on the protester's
speculative views regarding the Air Force's current and future operating
procedures for the movement of munitions and related items to and from
flight lines, do not render unreasonable the agency's conclusion that the
increased capacity of WASP's trailers would be of benefit to the agency. 
In this regard, the agency states that it *does not have a common practice
that incorporates one munitions trailer and one bomb lift to each aircraft
being loaded,* but rather, that *[a] trailer is typically loaded to
support several aircraft* and the trailers are moved *around as required
to support aircaft loading.*  ASR at 14.  Again, although the protester
disagrees with the Air Force's evaluation of proposals (as well as the Air
Force's views as to how to transport munitions and equipment), the
protester's arguments here represent, at best, its mere disagreement with
the agency, and provide no basis on which to sustain the protest. 
    
The protester also complains that the agency erred with regard to its
conclusion that WASP's proposed UMT design met the RFP's deck height
requirements.  However, WASP's proposal specifically stated that its
proposed UMT would meet the RFP's deck height requirements.  In light of
the detailed explanations, drawings, and analyses provided by WASP, the
agency states that it had no reason to question this aspect of WASP's
proposal.  ASR at 11; AR, Tab 7, WASP's Mission Capability Proposal, at
11.  Again, we cannot find the agency's conclusions here unreasonable.  
    
Landoll next claims that the agency's source selection was erroneously
based on its conclusion that WASP's UMT exceeded the RFP's 16,000-pound
minimum capacity requirement by 8,000 pounds.  It is true that the record
reflects that the initial summary evaluation of WASP's proposal
erroneously noted that WASP's trailer exceeded the minimum trailer
capacity by 8,000 pounds, and that this is simply not the case.  See AR,
Tab 11, Technical Design Subfactor Summary Document--WASP, at 11. 
However, despite the appearance of this error in certain of the
lower-level evaluation documents, we find credible the agency's position
that WASP *did not receive a strength for load capacity* with regard to
the additional 8,000 pounds UMT capacity, given that no mention of this
erroneous aspect of the evaluation appears in the higher-level evaluation
documents.  ASR at 12-13.  Specifically, there is no mention of WASP's UMT
having an additional 8,000-pound capacity in the evaluators' briefing of
the SSA, or the SSA's source selection document.[5]
    
Evaluation of Manufacturing Capability Subfactor of the Mission Capability
Factor
    
Landoll challenges the agency's evaluation of its and WASP's proposal
under the manufacturing capability subfactor to the mission capability
factor as *green/acceptable* with *low* risk.  The manufacturing
capability subfactor was to *be evaluated to determine if the offeror has
a manufacturing strategy that covers facets of planning, implementing, and
sustaining production,* including a *plan for setting in place necessary
resources (facilities, equipment, labor) to deliver quality items in the
required quantities to meet the program schedule.*  RFP at M-3. 
    
With regard to its own proposal, Landoll protests that the agency
*unreasonably assigned Landoll a 'green' rating, failing to account for
Landoll's many manufacturing capability strengths, such as [DELETED]. 
Protest at 8. 
    
Contrary to Landoll's assertions here, the record demonstrates that the
agency, in evaluating Landoll's proposal, recognized those aspects of the
proposal that Landoll asserts were strengths.  For example, in its
evaluation and briefing to the SSA, the agency noted as a *strength* that
Landoll is [DELETED].  AR, Tab 18, SSA Briefing, at 52.  The record also
reflects that the evaluators noted as *positive aspects* of Landoll's
proposal [DELETED].  AR, Tab 12, Manufacturing Capability Subfactor
Summary Document--Landoll, at 7-8.  The agency concluded, however, that
the evaluated *strength* and *positive aspects* of Landoll's proposal,
considered in conjunction with the proposal's lack of certain UMT-specific
information, merited a rating of *green/acceptable* under the
manufacturing capability subfactor.  For example, the agency found that
Landoll's proposal *lacked detailed UMT-specific manufacturing planning
information such as the equipment needed to build the UMT, UMT production
area layout, UMT process flow, and number of dedicated personnel by
skill.*  AR at 13.  Again, the protester does not substantively respond to
the agency's position, which we find to be reasonable.
    
With regard to the agency's evaluation of WASP's proposal under the
manufacturing capability subfactor, the protester argues that WASP's
proposal lacked detail and failed *to adequately describe its equipment
and personnel.*  Protester's Comments on ASR at 9.  In support of its
position, the protester points out that the agency evaluated WASP's
proposal as having a *weakness* because it provided a *[m]inimal
discussion of equipment.*  AR, Tab 11, Manufacturing Capability Subfactor
Summary Document--WASP, at 18.  The protester concludes that because of
this, the agency *should have assigned WASP a moderate risk rating on the
proposal risk/mission capability subfactor.*  Protester's Comments on ASR
at 9.
    
The record reflects that while the agency evaluated WASP's proposal as
having a *weakness* because of its minimal discussion of equipment, the
evaluators also evaluated WASP's proposal as having a number of *positive
aspects.*  For example, the agency reasonably found that, according to its
proposal, WASP was well under capacity with regard to its manufacturing
capabilities, and that because of this, WASP would not need any new
equipment, facilities, or personnel to meet the expected UMT production
schedule.  AR, Tab 11, Manufacturing Capability Subfactor Summary
Document--WASP, at 17-18.  The agency also noted as a *positive aspect*
that WASP proposed the use of [DELETED] systems to design and build
hardware,* and that *[a]ll prototypes will be built using WASP's current
production line methods to ensure that production unit performance will be
consistent with the prototypes.*  Id.  Thus, while the protester disagrees
with the agency's evaluation of WASP's proposal as *green/acceptable* with
*low* risk, we find the agency's evaluation to be reasonable. 
    
Allegedly Ambiguous Price
    
Landoll argues that WASP's proposal should have been rejected by the
agency as unacceptable because the proposal's price is ambiguous.
    
The RFP required that offerors include a separate price volume in their
proposals.  The price volume was to include, among other things, a
completed price schedule, with prices inserted for each contact line item
(CLIN) set forth on the schedule. 
In this regard, prices for 12 CLINs were to be provided by each offeror,
with CLIN 0001 consisting of the base contract requirement for the UMT
prototypes, CLIN 0002 consisting of an option for certain interim
contractor support, CLIN 0003 consisting of an option for certain data
(such as technical manuals and drawings), CLINs 0004‑0011 consisting
of options for the annual production quantities of the UMTs, and CLIN 0012
consisting of spare parts.[6]  A pricing table was also to be completed by
each offeror.  The completion of this table required the offeror to
insert, for CLINs 0004-0011, prices by various quantities for the UMTs
(such as 20-30, 31-40, 41-50, etc.)  RFP, attach. 4, Pricing Table.
    
The solicitation also included an *Options* clause, which provided that
*[t]he Government may require performance of the work required by CLIN(s)
0002-0012.*  This clause added that *[i]f the Government exercises this
option by TBD, the Contractor shall perform at the estimated cost and fee,
if applicable, set forth as follows,* and requested that the offeror
provide a cost, fee, and total cost plus fee, *as applicable.*  RFP at
B-12.
    
The cost/price volume of WASP's proposal included a completed price
schedule for CLINs 0001-0003, but left blank CLINs 0004-0012.  AR, Tab 7,
WASP Cost Proposal, attach. 5, at 1-10.  The proposal included a completed
*Options* clause, providing that CLINs 0004-0012 were priced as *TBD.* 
Id. at 11.  However, WASP also provided a completed pricing table setting
forth its fixed prices for CLINs 0004-0011 by the various quantities
listed.  AR, Tab 7, WASP Cost Proposal, attach. 6.
    
Landoll argues that WASP's proposal should have been rejected as ambiguous
because it provided prices of *TBD* for CLINs 0004-0011 in one section of
its proposal and fixed prices for these CLINs (and the various quantities
that may make up these CLINs) elsewhere in its proposal. 
    
The agency explains that the *Options* clause (discussed above) is used in
cost reimbursement contracts, and that its inclusion in this solicitation
was in error. 
The agency points out that the data requested by the clause (cost, fee,
and total cost plus fee) does not exist in a fixed-price contract.  ASR at
3.  The agency states here that although WASP inserted *TBD* in response
to this clause, it did not find that this notation rendered WASP's prices
ambiguous, given the solicitation's erroneous inclusion of the clause, and
the fact that WASP provided fixed prices for CLINs 0004‑0011 in its
pricing table.
    
We agree with the agency.  As explained above, WASP's proposal included a
pricing table setting forth prices for CLINs 0004-0011 as required by the
solicitation.  Although WASP provided a single notation of *TBD* for these
same CLINs under the *Options* clause, it appears to be an attempt by WASP
to conform its offer to the terms of a defective solicitation.  That is,
in response to a solicitation that provides for the award of a fixed-price
contract, WASP responded by providing fixed prices, but also by responding
to an erroneous clause applicable to cost-reimbursement contracts
providing that should the government decide to exercise its options on a
cost‑reimbursement basis, WASP's *estimated cost and fee* would have
to be determined.  Under the circumstances, we agree with the agency that
WASP's proposal is clear with regard to its proposed prices and conforms
to the terms of the RFP. 
    
Warranty
    
Landoll finally protests the agency's *decision to award [WASP] a
'strength' based upon its extended commercial warranty, because the
warranty is extremely limited* when compared to Landoll's proposed
warranty.  Protester's Comments on ASR at 6.
    
The record reflects that certain evaluators reasonably found that WASP's
warranty was a *positive aspect* (rather than a *strength*), given that
WASP provides a 3-year warranty for the UMTs (with certain exceptions,
such as for *expendable components* like tires which are warranted by
their manufacturer), and a 5-year warranty for the UMTs' structural
frame.  AR, Tab 7, WASP Proposal, Administrative Information-Warranty. 
The protester, who offered a warranty period of only 1 year, and like
WASP, excluded from its coverage *tires and other trade accessories
inasmuch as such items are warranted by the manufacturer thereof,* has
provided no valid basis to question this aspect of the agency's
evaluation.  See AR, Tab 8, Landoll's Proposal, Contractual Clauses, at
26.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

   ------------------------

   [1] The UMTs will be used to move munitions and related items to and from
the flight line and munitions storage areas at domestic and foreign Air
Force bases.
[2] The RFP clarified that under the proposal risk factor, a proposal risk
assessment would be made as to the risks identified under the UMT
technical design and manufacturing capability subfactors of the mission
capability factor.  RFP at M4.
[3] Proposals were evaluated under the UMT technical design and
manufacturing capability subfactors of the mission capability factor as
either blue/exceptional, green/acceptable, yellow/marginal, or
red/unacceptable.  With regard to proposal risk, proposals were evaluated
as either high, moderate, or low risk. 
Past performance proposals were evaluated as either exceptional/high
confidence, very good/significant confidence, satisfactory/confidence,
neutral/unknown, marginal/little, or unsatisfactory/no confidence.
[4] Discussions occur when a contracting officer advises an offeror still
being considered for award of significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and
other aspects of its proposal that could be altered or explained to
enhance materially the proposal's potential for award.  FAR S:
15.306(d)(3); Northeast MEP Serv., Inc., B-285963.9, Mar. 8, 2001, 2001
CPD P: 66 at 3.  If a procuring agency holds discussions with one offeror,
it must hold discussions with all offerors whose proposals are in the
competitive range.  FAR S: 15.306(d)(1); Northeast MEP Services, Inc.,
supra.  The protester does not argue, and there is no question, that the
agency's communication with WASP regarding the role of its subcontractor,
which related to the relevance of the subcontractor's past performance
information to the agency's evaluation of WASP's proposal, constituted
anything other than clarifications, and was not discussions.  See FAR S:
15.306(a)(1); Information Tech. & Applications Corp., B‑288510,
B-288510.2, Nov. 7, 2001, 2002 CPD P: 28 at 9-10.
[5] In an argument related to this protest ground, Landoll argues that the
tires offered by WASP would be insufficient to support this extra 8,000
pounds.  Since the source selection was based on no such conclusion, we do
not consider these arguments.
[6] According to the RFP, the spare parts under CLIN 0012 were to be
provided in accordance with the *contractor's pre-priced parts list* that
was to be submitted under CLIN 0002.  Given that CLIN 0002 was an option
CLIN, both Landoll and WASP priced CLIN 0012 as *TBD [to be determined].*