TITLE: B-310329, Blane International Group, Inc., December 13, 2007
BNUMBER: B-310329
DATE: December 13, 2007
************************************************************
B-310329, Blane International Group, Inc., December 13, 2007

   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: Blane International Group, Inc.

   File: B-310329

   Date: December 13, 2007

   Jeffrey N. Schwartz, Esq., Lawrence E. Newlin & Associates, PC, for the
   protester.

   Vera Meza, Esq., and Bradley J. Crosson, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command,
   for the agency.

   Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Contracting agency engaged in meaningful discussions regarding protester's
   delivery plan, such that the protester should have been aware of agency's
   concerns, where it informed protester that its delivery plan was difficult
   to read and follow.

   DECISION

   Blane International Group, Inc. protests the Department of the Army's
   award of a contract to GSS, Inc., an affiliate of Sporting Supplies
   International (SSI), under request for proposals (RFP) No.
   W52P1J-07R-0104, for ammunition. Blane primarily asserts that the agency
   failed to engage in meaningful discussions.

   We deny the protest.

   On June 28, 2007, the Army issued the solicitation for nonstandard
   ammunition for the Afghanistan National Security Forces and the Government
   of Iraq. The solicitation was structured for multiple awards: one for the
   Afghanistan requirement, and two for the Iraq requirement ("Iraq A" and
   "Iraq B"). RFP at 49. Award was to be made to the firm or firms submitting
   the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer, with technical
   acceptability to be evaluated based on three subfactors: delivery plan,
   shipping plan, and quality assurance plan. RFP at 42. The solicitation
   stated that the "Technical Subfactors will be evaluated on a Go/No Go
   Basis; and only contractors who receive a Go on all Sub-factors under the
   Technical Factor will be evaluated on Price." Id.

   The Army received 7 proposals for the Afghanistan requirement and 10 for
   the Iraq requirement by the August 1 closing date. The Army established
   two competitive ranges--one for each requirement--and opened discussions.
   Blane, whose proposals were included in the competitive range for both
   requirements, received a letter from the agency outlining various issues
   with its proposals, and requesting that it respond to the issues with a
   detailed and complete answer. Regarding the Iraq requirement, the letter
   stated that "[[t]he Delivery Plan is difficult to read/follow. Please
   identify producers along with suppliers," and that "[c]ommitment letters
   do not list all of the requested items. Provide all commitment letters
   from all producers." Agency Report (AR), Tab 16, at 1.

   On August 15, Blane responded to the discussion letter by modifying its
   delivery plan and providing commitment letters from suppliers. AR, Tab 23.
   Over the next several days, Blane responded to inquiries regarding its
   financial capability, which, on August 27, resulted in the Defense
   Contract Management Agency's (DCMA) rating Blane a low financial risk. On
   August 31, the agency notified Blane that its offer for the Iraq B
   requirement, priced at $21,296,000, had been determined to be technically
   unacceptable for a "no go" finding under the delivery plan technical
   subfactor, and that award had been made to GSS at a price of $25,977,161.
   Following a debriefing, Blane filed this protest, challenging the award of
   the Iraq B requirement. Blane challenges the award on a number of grounds.
   We find all of Blane's arguments to be without merit; we discuss several
   of these arguments below.

   DISCUSSIONS

   Blane primarily asserts that the discussion letter it received did not
   constitute meaningful discussions because it failed to provide sufficient
   information to enable Blane to address its delivery plan deficiencies.[1]

   Discussions, when conducted, must be meaningful, that is, they may not be
   misleading and must identify proposal deficiencies and significant
   weaknesses that could reasonably be addressed in a manner to materially
   enhance the offeror's potential for receiving award. PAI Corp., B-298349,
   Aug. 18, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 124 at 8. However, agencies are not required
   to "spoon feed" an offeror during discussions; they need only lead
   offerors into the areas of their proposal that require amplification.
   LaBarge Elecs., B-266210, Feb. 9, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 58 at 6.

   The discussions here were unobjectionable. As noted above, the discussion
   letter specifically advised Blane that its delivery plan was difficult to
   read and follow. In this regard, Blane's initial delivery plan consisted
   of a chart containing various item descriptions (down the left hand side
   of the chart), amounts (throughout the chart, including various blank
   spaces), and country names (down the right hand side of the chart),
   formatted in such a manner that the columns contained no headings--thus
   making it unclear to what the columns referred--and the rows contained
   amounts that were not clearly on the same line, making it unclear which
   amount referred to which item description.[2] Since the nature of the
   agency's difficulty with the chart was, simply, that it was difficult to
   read and follow, the discussion letter was sufficient to lead Blane into
   the area of its proposal that required improvement or further
   clarification.

   Blane asserts that the agency should have reviewed its entire proposal,
   including the quantities contained in a "transportation matrix," and then
   brought any discrepancies to its attention during discussions. Protester's
   Comments at 3. However, while the protester may believe that it would have
   been better able to address the deficiencies in its delivery plan if the
   agency had approached discussions as it suggests, the agency was not
   required to do so; again, the agency was only required to lead the
   protester into the area of concern. Moreover, given the lack of clarity in
   the chart, and the agency's resultant inability to determine precisely
   what Blane intended, we think the agency was not in a position to provide
   more information in its discussion letter; certainly, it was not required
   to provide more detailed questions based on its speculation as to what
   Blane may have intended.

   TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

   Blane asserts that, notwithstanding the agency's position that its
   proposal was found to be "no go," the record actually shows that its
   proposal was considered acceptable. In this regard, citing the RFP
   language providing that "only contractors receiving a GO on all
   sub-factors under the technical factor will be evaluated on price,"
   RFP at 42, Blane argues that, since DCMA evaluated its price, its proposal
   must have been found to be technically acceptable.[3] Blane also asserts
   that its proposal must have been acceptable since it was never notified
   that its proposal was no longer included in the competitive range, as
   required under Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 15.306(c)(3). This
   argument is without merit. The acceptability of offerors' proposals was to
   be determined, not on the basis of whether the agency complied with
   procedural requirements in conducting the procurement, but on the basis of
   the contents of the proposals. The record shows, as discussed, that the
   agency rated Blane's proposal "no go" based on the evaluation of its
   delivery plan, and Blane has not shown that this evaluation was
   unreasonable. Neither the fact that the agency proceeded to evaluate
   Blane's price, nor the fact that the agency may have failed to provide
   Blane with notice of its proposal's elimination from the competitive range
   operate to override this evaluation, or otherwise affect the propriety of
   the award.

   EVIDENCE OF COMMITMENT

   The solicitation required that offerors provide information regarding the
   "Supplier/Source of the material, including company name, location, and
   proof of commitment." RFP at 42. The agency advised Blane in its
   discussion letter that the commitment letters provided with its proposal
   "do not list all the requested items. Please provide all commitment
   letters from all producers." AR, Tab 16, at 1. Likewise, GSS was asked in
   its discussion letter to "identify all sources/suppliers," and to
   "[p]rovide all commitment letters from all producers and suppliers." AR,
   Tab 17, at 1. In response, GSS provided letters from suppliers to SSI, a
   company affiliated with GSS, and a letter from SSI stating that the
   majority of the items would be "self supplied" by SSI from "existing
   inventory...and planned production." AR, Tab 25, at 8. The agency found
   that SSI's proposal to supply these items from new production with
   significant quantities already in stock constituted sufficient evidence to
   satisfy the commitment requirement. Blane maintains that it was improper
   for the agency to accept GSS's evidence of commitment, since SSI is an
   affiliated company, so that the evidence was essentially from GSS itself.
   We find nothing objectionable in GSS's commitment letters. Since GSS
   provided letters from suppliers, and also from SSI, the producer of the
   ammunition, we think the agency properly could find that the awardee had
   provided adequate evidence of commitment.[4]

   Finally, Blane asserts that GSS failed to comply with the solicitation
   requirement for information regarding the location of suppliers. Blane
   asserts that the awardee has failed to identify the address of its
   companies, instead only identifying them as "CONUS" [Continental United
   States]. This argument is without merit. Contrary to the protester's
   assertion, the solicitation did not require addresses for suppliers; it
   required only a location. RFP at 42. The agency reasonably determined that
   GSS's reference to CONUS satisfied this broad requirement. AR, Tab 10, at
   1-2.

   We deny the protest.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] In its initial protest, Blane challenged the agency's "no go"
   determination under the delivery plan subfactor. However, the agency
   responded to this assertion in its report, and Blane did not rebut the
   agency's position in its comments on the report. Under these
   circumstances, we consider the protester's challenge to the "no go"
   determination to be abandoned. Planning Sys., Inc., B-292312, July 29,
   2003, 2004 CPD para. 83 at 6.

   [2] The record reflects that Blane responded to the discussion item by
   attempting to provide a more coherent delivery plan; however, the agency
   concluded that Blane's response did not fully allay its concerns. For
   instance, although Blane submitted a revised delivery chart that now
   included headings for each of the columns--specifically, "item
   description," "total quantity," "30 days," "60 days," "90 days,
   "120 days," and "Source of Material"--the agency concluded that the
   delivery schedule was still in a format that was difficult to read, and
   that it was "unclear if the contractor is supplying required quantities
   within the customer's required delivery date." AR, Tab 32, at 6. This
   conclusion was reached, in part, because the chart remained unclear as to
   which amounts referred to which item descriptions. Contracting Officer's
   Statement at 9. Blane does not challenge the agency's conclusion that its
   delivery plan, as revised, remained deficient.

   [3] Blane asserts that the agency's evaluating its price improperly misled
   it into believing that its proposal had been found technically acceptable,
   such that it did not seek clarification regarding the "vague alleged
   deficiency that its delivery plan was difficult to read/follow."
   Protester's Comments 2. However, at the time Blane learned that the agency
   was evaluating its financial capabilities, it already had submitted its
   response to the discussion questions without seeking clarification. Given
   this sequence of events, we find it implausible that Blane was misled.

   [4] In its November 7 submission, the protester asserts that GSS and SSI
   are merely ammunition brokers, and have no factories themselves, implying
   that the agency should have confirmed GSS's commitment information.
   However, the RFP did not provide for such confirmation. In any case, the
   allegation is untimely, since it is not apparent why it could not have
   been raised in Blane's October 29 comments filed in response to the
   October 18 agency report. Our Regulations do not contemplate the piecemeal
   development of protest issues. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.
   sect. 21.2(a)(2); see Mele Assocs., Inc., B-299229.4, July 25, 2007, 2007
   CPD para. 140. The November 7 letter raises additional arguments--for
   example, that GSS's shipping plan does not meet the RFP requirements--that
   are based on information in the agency report. Thus, these arguments, too,
   are untimely and will not be considered. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2).