TITLE: B-310460, Connectec Company, Inc., November 27, 2007
BNUMBER: B-310460
DATE: November 27, 2007
****************************************************
B-310460, Connectec Company, Inc., November 27, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: Connectec Company, Inc.

   File: B-310460

   Date: November 27, 2007

   Kimberly Stefani, Connectec Company, Inc., for the protester.

   Todd Bailey, Esq., Bureau of Prisons, for the agency.

   Paula J. Haurilesko, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest that the agency improperly rejected protester's proposal for its
   failure to provide delivery information is denied where the delivery
   information was clearly required by the solicitation, and where the
   solicitation indicated that the offered delivery terms would be
   significant in the evaluation.

   DECISION

   Connectec Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Teutech LLC by
   the Federal Bureau of Prisons (UNICOR) under request for proposals (RFP)
   No. EP2353-07 for motor vehicle hardware. Connectec contends that UNICOR
   improperly excluded its proposal from consideration because it lacked
   delivery information.

   We deny the protest.

   UNICOR issued, on July 19, 2007, an RFP for a 5-year, fixed-price
   requirements contract to supply UNICOR with motor vehicle hardware. RFP at
   2, 5. The RFP was amended six times, with a final closing date of August
   10. Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 1; RFP amendment 6, at 1. The
   RFP advised that the Government intended to award the contract without
   engaging in discussions. RFP at 6.

   As relevant here, the RFP included several references to the importance
   of, and need for, delivery information, including:

     Required delivery will be established at time of award. Please submit
     your best manufacturing/delivery time for evaluation and delivery
     schedule will be established at time of award. RFP at 2.

     [S]ignificant evaluation factors are (a) past performance, (b) delivery
     and (c) price and price related factors. Past performance and delivery
     are weighted equally and are significantly more important than price.
     Id. at 6.

     Award(s) will be based on best value to the Government with past
     performance and delivery significantly more important than price. Id. at
     9.

   In addition, the RFP at section B provided space for the offeror to fill
   in unit price, total amount in U.S. dollars, and delivery date. Id. at 3.

   Connectec submitted its proposal on August 9, but did not include a
   proposed delivery schedule. CO Statement at 2. UNICOR awarded the contract
   to Teutech on August 20, and posted a notice of the award on August 29.
   Id. Subsequently, Connectec contacted UNICOR requesting an explanation of
   the decision to award the contract to Teutech at a higher price. Connectec
   Letter, Sept. 5, at 1. UNICOR explained that Connectec's proposal was
   rejected because it failed to include a proposed delivery schedule. CO
   Statement at 2. Connectec filed an agency-level protest, which UNICOR
   denied. CO Letter, Sept. 17. Subsequently, Connectec filed this protest.

   Connectec does not disagree that it failed to provide delivery
   information. Instead, it contends that UNICOR should not have excluded its
   proposal from consideration for award because the agency has, in the past,
   awarded contracts based on proposals that did not contain delivery
   information.

   Generally, a delivery schedule or time of performance requirement is
   regarded as a material requirement of a solicitation. See, e.g., Muddy
   Creek Oil and Gas, Inc., B-296836, Aug. 9, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 143 at 2.
   A proposal that fails to conform to material solicitation requirements is
   technically unacceptable and cannot form the basis for award. Bannum,
   Inc., B-291847, Mar. 17, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 74 at 3. Here, the RFP
   provided for a delivery date, stated that delivery was one of three
   evaluation factors, and noted twice that delivery and past performance
   were significantly more important than price. RFP at 6, 9. Therefore,
   information about an offeror's ability and intent to make timely
   deliveries was a material part of each proposal, and UNICOR reasonably
   determined that the lack of delivery information rendered Connectec's
   proposal technically unacceptable and ineligible for contract award.

   The protester argues that it has been awarded contracts in the past
   without a proposed delivery schedule. Protest at 1. To support this
   assertion, the protester provided a prior solicitation under which it
   claims to have received award without providing delivery terms.
   Protester's Comments, Nov. 5, 2007, exh. 1. Our review of this
   solicitation shows that it does not use the same evaluation scheme as
   here; delivery was not a separate evaluation factor. Id. Furthermore, even
   if this assertion is true, the protester cannot rely on past practices to
   excuse its failure to satisfy the requirements of the RFP here, as each
   procurement stands alone. GM Indus., Inc., B-231998, Oct. 25, 1988, 88-2
   CPD para. 388 at 5.

   In our view, the RFP clearly indicated that offerors must identify a
   delivery date in order to be considered for award. Therefore, UNICOR
   reasonably excluded Connectec from consideration when the company failed
   to include the required delivery information in its proposal.[1]

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] To the extent that Connectec argues that the failure of other offerors
   to provide delivery information is proof that the RFP was defective, and
   argues that UNICOR failed to highlight the need for delivery information,
   we have reviewed the record and find that neither of these arguments
   provides a basis for sustaining this protest. As noted above, the RFP
   sought delivery information, identified delivery as an evaluation factor,
   and indicated that it was one of the most important evaluation factors.