About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-401600 1 (2009-10-14)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadbko0001 and id is 1 raw text is: AlL A , G A O Comptroller General Accuntabiity * Integrity * Reliability of the United States United States Government Accountability Office DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Washington, DC 20548 The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. D e c is io n ........................................................... Matter of: A P Logistics, LLC File: B-401600 Date: October 14, 2009 Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., and Timothy Sullivan, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for the protester. Maj. C. Peter Dungan, Department of the Army, for the agency. Christina Sklarew, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In a negotiated procurement that required the submission of a small business subcontracting plan, which was not considered as part of the technical evaluation, protest that the agency did not negotiate the acceptability of the protester's subcontracting plan is denied, where the agency identified its concerns with the protester's plan during discussions and the protester failed to adequately address those concerns in its revised proposal. DECISION A.P. Logistics, LLC (APL), of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc., of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124J-09-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Army for storage services for privately-owned vehicles. The Army rejected APL's proposal because it found that APL had not submitted an acceptable small business subcontracting plan. APL complains that the Army was required to negotiate with the protester to correct any perceived weaknesses in its plan. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract on a best value basis and identified the following evaluation factors: mission capability, past performance, small business participation, and price. RFP at 52. Offerors were informed that the agency intended to make award without conducting discussions and cautioned offerors that their initial proposals should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint.