TITLE: B-299144, B&S Transport, Inc., January 22, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299144
DATE: January 22, 2007
***********************************************
B-299144, B&S Transport, Inc., January 22, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: B&S Transport, Inc.

   File: B-299144

   Date: January 22, 2007

   Alani Golanski, Esq., Law Office of Alani Golanski, for the protester.

   Richard D. Ferguson, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.

   Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest against elimination of protester's proposal from competitive range
   is denied where record supports the reasonableness of the agency's
   evaluation of protester's proposal as unsatisfactory and not capable of
   being made acceptable without major revisions.

   DECISION

   B&S Transport, Inc., a small business, protests the elimination of its
   proposal from the competitive range by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA),
   Defense Supply Center Columbus, under request for proposals (RFP)
   No. SP0700-06-R-7022 to implement DLA's Tire Privatization Initiative
   (TPI). B&S argues that there was no reasonable basis for the evaluation of
   its proposal as unsatisfactory and that it was improper for the agency to
   remove B&S's proposal from the competitive range.

   We deny the protest.[1]

   DLA issued the RFP on July 10, 2006, seeking a single contractor to supply
   tires for all armor/tactical vehicles, as well as for other vehicles and
   equipment, worldwide, and to provide complete tire supply-chain
   management. The RFP anticipated award of a fixed-price,[2]
   indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a 5-year base
   period with a 5-year option period.

   The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of four
   factors: technical, socioeconomic program utilization, Javits-Wagner-O'Day
   (JWOD) Act entity utilization, and price.[3] Under the technical
   evaluation factor, the RFP established three subfactors--management
   approach, operational approach, and past performance--and provided that a
   rating of "Unacceptable" for any of these technical subfactors would
   render the entire proposal unacceptable. The RFP also specified that
   proposals were expected to "demonstrate[] a thorough understanding of the
   scope and complexity of the work and the ability to successfully perform
   the work." RFP at 65-66.

   On or before the closing date, three offerors, including B&S, submitted
   proposals; thereafter, each offeror provided video proposal presentations.
   The RFP limited technical proposals to 75 pages; B&S's technical proposal
   was less than 35 pages. The RFP also limited video presentations to 2
   hours; B&S's video presentation was approximately 6 minutes--more than
   half of which consisted of archival footage of the 1968 Olympic gold medal
   boxing victory of its corporate founder and president. Agency Report (AR),
   Tab 12a, DVD of B&S Video Presentation.

   After reviewing proposals, the source selection evaluation board (SSEB)
   rated B&S's technical proposal as "Unsatisfactory (B)"[4] under both the
   management approach and operational approach sub-factors,[5] and
   "Unsatisfactory (B)" overall. AR, Tab 17, Contracting Officer Assessment
   Slides, at 24. Specifically, the agency found that B&S's proposal failed
   to comply with, or even address, multiple RFP requirements regarding its
   proposed management approach, including: providing an organizational
   structure that identified the management and oversight responsibilities of
   the offeror and its proposed subcontractors; identification of the
   responsibilities of its proposed key personnel; and providing information
   regarding its proposed management approach to monitoring performance
   levels or adjusting to changing demands.[6] Contracting Officer's
   Statement at 5; RFP at 39-41; Technical Evaluation Team (TET) Report at
   18-22. With regard to B&S's proposed operational approach, the agency
   similarly concluded that B&S's proposal failed to comply with multiple RFP
   requirements, including requirements to describe its supply chain model
   and requirements regarding B&S's proposed approach to transition and full
   implementation of the contract requirements.[7] Id. Based on the TET's
   documented evaluation of multiple proposal deficiencies, the contracting
   officer determined that B&S's proposal was unacceptable and could not be
   made acceptable without major additions and revisions; accordingly, B&S's
   proposal was eliminated from the competitive range.

   Although B&S acknowledges that its proposal "provided less than full-blown
   details on every point," B&S asserts that the lack of information in its
   proposal reflected the agency's comments at a pre-proposal conference
   during which, according to B&S, the agency emphasized the proposal page
   limitations and encouraged offerors to be concise. Protester's Comments
   at 17-18. More specifically, B&S complains that the agency's evaluation
   was unreasonable because it reflects "simply the lack of paperwork" in
   B&S's proposal and fails to give proper consideration to what B&S
   describes as its "fine performance history and capabilities." Protester's
   Comments at 17, 20.

   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 para. 223 at 4. It is an offeror's obligation to submit an adequately
   written proposal. United Defense LP, B-286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001
   CPD para. 75 at 19. Where an offeror provides cursory, general assurances
   that it can perform the work in response to specific requirements in an
   RFP to provide detailed information, the agency may reasonably find that
   the proposal lacks required information and thus is technically
   unacceptable. Worldwide Primates, Inc., B-294481, Oct. 12, 2004, 2004 CPD
   para. 206 at 4-5. Proposals that are technically unacceptable as submitted
   and would require major revisions to become acceptable are not required to
   be included in the competitive range. Third Millennium, Inc., B-241286,
   Jan. 30, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 91.

   Here, based on our review of the record, it is clear that B&S has not
   meaningfully challenged the agency's evaluation of its proposal; rather,
   B&S's protest merely disparages the agency's evaluation as "emphasizing
   the ability to churn out paperwork" and criticizes the expertise of the
   agency's evaluators as "not hav[ing] the specific knowledge or expertise
   concerning tire manufacture, supply and distribution, sufficient to make
   the wisest choices in a pursuit of best value for the TPI." [8]
   Protester's Comments at 3, 34. Based on our review of the entire record,
   we find no basis to question the agency's evaluation, nor its
   determination to exclude B&S's proposal from the competitive range.

   The protest is denied.[9]

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] We granted DLA's request to handle this protest under the express
   option provisions of our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.10
   (2006), which DLA stated will allow it to meet its goal of assuming tire
   management responsibilities from the Department of the Army, in accordance
   with Base Realignment and Closure plans, in March 2007.

   [2] Offerors were to provide a unit price for each tire, listed by
   national stock number (NSN), and an extended price for purposes of
   evaluation based on estimated ordering volume for each NSN.

   [3] Offerors were advised that the non-price factors were significantly
   more important than price. RFP at 65.

   [4] The source selection plan defined a rating of "Unsatisfactory (B)" as:
   "Proposal does not comply substantially with requirements. The proposal is
   not capable of being made acceptable without major revisions or rewrite."
   AR, Tab 16, Source Selection Plan, at 8.

   [5] B&S's proposal was also rated unsatisfactory under the past
   performance subfactor.

   [6] B&S's proposal identified key personnel by providing a one-page
   organizational chart, but failed to discuss the responsibilities of the
   various individuals or to discuss the qualifications of its proposed
   project manager. With regard to B&S's overall management approach, the TET
   report listed multiple specific weaknesses and/or deficiencies, including:
   "did not address the solicitation request for supply chain modeling and
   simulation"; "has not demonstrated the ability to partner with sources of
   supply"; "has not demonstrated the ability to provide all warehouse
   related operations"; and "did not address what teaming they would do with
   manufacturers when sourcing is limited." TET Report at 18-20.

   [7] Among other things, the TET report listed specific weaknesses and/or
   deficiencies regarding B&S's operational approach, including: "did not
   address how they would adapt to emergent requirements while maintaining
   threshold levels of service"; "did not address any potential supply chain
   risks to meeting the performance criteria"; "did not address a description
   of the military tire manufacturing base"; "did not address planned
   resolution of current obsolescence issues"; and "did not address
   communications." TET Report, at 21-22.

   [8] B&S elaborates, in conclusory form, that B&S's ability to perform the
   contract requirements is greater than any other entity, stating: "Nor do
   B&S's competitors have B&S's level of understanding of the nature of, and
   potential problems arising from, the supply of tires to Government
   clients, and in particular military operations. It is only B&S which has
   specific expertise in these areas informed by decades of successful and
   outstanding relevant service." Protester's Comments at 34.

   [9] B&S's protest challenges various other aspects of the agency's
   evaluation and the source selection process. In light of our conclusion,
   discussed above, that the agency reasonably excluded B&S's proposal from
   the competitive range based on B&S's submission of a technical proposal
   that was unacceptable and not capable of being made acceptable without
   major revisions, our decision does not further discuss B&S's additional
   allegations. We have considered all of B&S's assertions and find no basis
   for sustaining its protest.