B-171177, MAY 11, 1971, 50 COMP GEN 777

B-171177, MAY 11, 1971, 50 COMP GEN 777

CONTRACTS - AWARDS - MULTIPLE - LOWEST OVERALL COST TO GOVERNMENT ALTHOUGH THE MULTIPLE AWARDS TO THE FOUR OFFERORS RESPONDING TO A SOLICITATION ISSUED UNDER THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY AUTHORITY IN 10 U.S.C. 2304(A)(16), THREE OPERATING GOVERNMENT-OWNED CONTRACTOR-OPERATED FACILITIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SATISFYING CURRENT NEEDS AND RETAINING SUPPLIERS FOR ACCELERATED FUTURE DEMANDS, DID NOT RESULT IN THE LOWEST INDIVIDUAL OFFEROR RECEIVING AN AWARD FOR THE MAXIMUM QUALITY, THE MULTIPLE AWARDS PRODUCED THE LOWEST OVERALL COST TO THE GOVERNMENT AND WILL NOT BE DISTURBED, EVEN THOUGH THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) STATED THAT IT WAS EXPECTED ONE OFFEROR WOULD NOT BE SUCCESSFUL WHEREAS AWARDS WERE MADE TO ALL OFFERORS. MOREOVER, THERE WAS NO QUANTITY INCREASE TO REQUIRE A FORMAL AMENDMENT TO THE RFP, THE EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSALS FROM OFFERORS OPERATING GOVERNMENT FACILITIES WAS IN ACCORD WITH BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-76, AND FAILURE TO AWARD ALL CONTRACTS SIMULTANEOUSLY WAS JUSTIFIED, AS WAS THE EVALUATION TRANSPORTATION FACTOR USED.

TO THE CHAMBERLAIN MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, MAY 11, 1971:

THIS REFERS TO THE TELEGRAM OF NOVEMBER 7, 1970, AND LETTER OF NOVEMBER 11, 1970, AND YOUR COMMENTS OF JANUARY 15, 1971, ON ARMY'S REPORT, PROTESTING AGAINST THE AWARDS UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. DAAA09-71-R- 0018, ISSUED AUGUST 26, 1970, BY THE AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT AND SUPPLY AGENCY (APSA), DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY.

THE PROCUREMENT WAS CONDUCTED UNDER 10 U.S.C. 2304(A)(16) WHICH AUTHORIZES NEGOTIATION IF IT IS DETERMINED TO BE IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL DEFENSE TO HAVE A SUPPLIER AVAILABLE FOR FURNISHING PROPERTY OR SERVICES IN CASE OF A NATIONAL EMERGENCY.

THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS CALLED FOR 2,742,610 UNITS OF METAL PARTS FOR 155MM PROJECTILES. OFFERORS WERE INVITED TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS ON THE LARGEST MONTHLY DELIVERY RANGE THEY COULD MEET PLUS ALL OF THE SMALLER MONTHLY RANGES. THE RANGES IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WERE AS FOLLOWS:

RANGES

MONTHLY QUANTITIES TOTAL QUANTITIES

50,000 600,000

55,000 660,000

60,000 720,000

65,000 780,000

70,000 840,000

75,000 900,000

80,000 960,000

85,000 1,020,000

OFFERS WERE SOLICITED FROM THE FOLLOWING FOUR CURRENT BASE PRODUCING CONTRACTORS:

1. DONOVAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, NEW BRIGHTON, MINNESOTA (DONOVAN).

2. SPERRY RAND CORPORATION, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA (SPERRY RAND).

3. CHAMBERLAIN MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, NEW BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS (CHAMBERLAIN-NEW BEDFORD).

4. CHAMBERLAIN MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA (CHAMBERLAIN-SCRANTON).

EXCEPT FOR CHAMBERLAIN-NEW BEDFORD, ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE GOVERNMENT OWNED CONTRACTOR-OPERATED FACILITIES.

A PROVISION ON PAGE 46 OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ENTITLED "NOTICE TO OFFERORS" PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

NOTICE TO OFFERORS

THIS SOLICITATION AND THE RANGES OF QUANTITIES PROPOSED ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO SELECT A COMBINATION OF MULTIPLE AWARDS WHICH WILL SATISFY THE CURRENT PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND AT THE SAME TIME RETAIN MORE THAN ONE SUPPLIER IN AN ACTIVE STATE WITH CAPABILITY TO ACCELERATE PRODUCTION TO A HIGHER PRODUCTION RATE AT SOME FUTURE DATE, IF REQUIRED. THE GOVERNMENT EXPECTS THAT ONE OFFEROR PARTICIPATING IN THIS COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT ACTION MAY BE UNSUCCESSFUL AND MAY NOT RECEIVE AN AWARD AS A RESULT OF THIS SOLICITATION. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT NOT MORE THAN THREE AWARDS MAY RESULT FROM THIS SOLICITATION AND THE QUANTITIES AND DELIVERY SCHEDULES AWARDED MAY VARY BETWEEN THOSE OFFERORS WHO ARE SELECTED FOR AWARDS WITH SOME RECEIVING LARGER QUANTITIES THAN OTHERS, BASED ON THE RANGE QUANTITIES, AND PRICES SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE SOLICITATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT COMBINATION OF AWARDS DETERMINED TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT, PRICE AND OTHER FACTORS CONSIDERED. PRINCIPAL AMONG SUCH OTHER FACTORS WILL BE THE POTENTIAL QUALITATIVE MOBILIZATION PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUPPLY ITEM INVOLVED AND THE ABILITY OF FIRMS SELECTED FOR WARD TO RESPOND TO SUCH POTENTIAL FUTURE DEMANDS BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR INCREASED PRODUCTION BEYOND THE QUANTITIES INITIALLY AWARDED AS A RESULT OF THIS SOLICITATION.

THE EXTENDED DATE FOR RECEIPT OF OFFERS WAS SEPTEMBER 10, 1970, AND FOUR OFFERS WERE RECEIVED ON THAT DATE. THE OFFERORS WERE REQUESTED TO CONFIRM OR SUBMIT REVISED OFFERS BY SEPTEMBER 23, 1970, AND THEY WERE ADVISED THAT THESE REVISED OFFERS MIGHT BE USED BY THE PROCURING ACTIVITY AS THE BASIS FOR CEILING PRICES IN AWARDING LETTER TYPE CONTRACTS. OFFERORS WERE ALSO ADVISED THAT THE TOTAL MONTHLY REQUIREMENT WOULD BE 250,000 UNITS AND THAT OFFERS WOULD BE EVALUATED WITH THE VIEW OF OBTAINING THAT MONTHLY QUANTITY.

A REVIEW OF THE ABSTRACT INDICATES THAT THE FOLLOWING PRICES WERE QUOTED BY OFFERORS FOR THE VARIOUS RANGES:

UNIT PRICES

QUANTITY

(MONTHLY CHAMBERLAIN- CHAMBERLAIN- SPERRY

SCHEDULE) NEW BEDFORD SCRANTON DONOVAN RAND

50,000 $23.27 $24.9594 $23.64 $25.9213

55,000 22.94 24.4692 23.54 25.9616

60,000 22.67 23.922 23.24 25.6518

65,000 23.00 23.3237 23.20 25.4819

70,000 22.82 23.0325.6821

75,000 22.66 22.99 25.3822

80,000 22.68 22.80 25.3023

85,000 22.56 22.54 24.9724

IN ARRIVING AT EVALUATED PRICES, FACTORS FOR FACILITIES AND REAL PROPERTY, FACILITIES REPAIR, AND TRANSPORTATION WERE ADDED. ADDITIONAL FACTORS FOR UTILITIES AND LABOR ESCALATION WERE ADDED TO DONOVAN'S PRICES. PROVISION NO. 72 ON PAGE 82 OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS INCORPORATED THE PRICE ESCALATION CLAUSE AT ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR) 7-107(C). THE UTILITIES FACTOR WAS ADDED TO DONOVAN'S OFFER SINCE SERVICES SUCH AS GAS, WATER AND SEWERAGE WERE SUPPLIED TO DONOVAN BY ANOTHER CONTRACTOR. AFTER THE EVALUATION FACTORS WERE ADDED, THE PRICES OFFERED WERE AS FOLLOWS:

EVALUATED UNIT PRICES

QUANTITY CHAMBERLAIN- CHAMBERLAIN- SPERRY

(MONTHLY NEW BEDFORD SCRANTON DONOVAN RAND

SCHEDULE)

RAAP* LAAP** RAAP LAAP RAAP LAAP

50,000 $25.2636 $27.98935 $26.9399 $27.92605 $27.5660 $29.2006

55,000 24.8836 27.37775 26.3283 27.70205 27.3426 29.0600

60,000 24.6136 26.77035 25.7209 27.39455 27.0351 28.5895

65,000 24.9536 26.10075 25.0513 27.16455 26.8051 28.2790

70,000 24.7336 26.91595 26.5565 28.3487

75,000 24.5536 26.81085 26.45140 27.9384

80,000 24.5336 26.55945 26.200 27.7681

85,000 24.3936 26.24305 25.8836 27.3478

*RAAP - RAVENNA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT.

**LAAP - LOUISIANA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT.

WE ARE ADVISED THAT THE DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE SELECTION OF OFFERORS AND THE QUANTITY TO BE AWARDED TO EACH OFFEROR WERE BASED ON MAINTAINING FOUR SOURCES OF SUPPLY FURNISHING A TOTAL OF 250,000 UNITS PER MONTH. BOTH OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS WERE DEEMED ESSENTIAL BY APSA. WAS DETERMINED, CONSISTENT WITH THESE PURPOSES, THAT THE AWARDS OF THE FOLLOWING COMBINATION OF QUANTITIES WOULD RESULT IN THE LOWEST OVERALL COST TO THE GOVERNMENT:

CONTRACTOR QUANTITY DEST UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

DONOVAN 85,000 LAAP $26.24305 $2,230,659

CHAMBERLAIN- 65,000 37,500-RAAP 25.0513 939,424

SCRANTON 27,500-LAAP 26.10075 717,771

CHAMBERLAIN-

NEW BEDFORD 50,000 RAAP 25.263576 1,263,179

SPERRY RAND 50,000 LAAP 29.2006 1,460,030

$6,611,063

THE ABOVE COMPUTATION IS BASED ON THE RATE OF 250,000 PROJECTILES PER MONTH. AWARDS HAVE BEEN MADE TO CHAMBERLAIN-NEW BEDFORD AND TO DONOVAN FOR A 12-MONTH PERIOD; TO CHAMBERLAIN-SCRANTON FOR AN 11-MONTH PERIOD AND TO SPERRY RAND FOR AN 8-MONTH PERIOD.

YOUR PROTEST CENTERS AROUND SEVERAL ISSUES. THE FIRST ISSUE DEALS WITH THE COMBINATION OF QUANTITIES AWARDED TO OFFERORS. THE THRUST OF YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT ARMY'S ACTIONS RESULTED IN THE FRUSTRATION OF THREE BASIC POLICIES:

(1) THAT THE LOW OFFEROR SHOULD RECEIVE THE MAXIMUM QUANTITY.

(2) THAT PRIVATELY-OWNED PLANTS SHOULD BE PREFERRED OVER GOVERNMENT OWNED FACILITIES.

(3) THAT LABOR SURPLUS AREAS SUCH AS NEW BEDFORD SHOULD RECEIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN THE AWARD OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.

YOU ALSO URGE THAT THE "NOTICE TO OFFERORS" PROVISION QUOTED ABOVE WAS MISLEADING IN ADVISING OFFERORS THAT ONE OF THE OFFERORS PARTICIPATING MIGHT BE UNSUCCESSFUL.

IN B-153687, JULY 7, 1964, OUR OFFICE CONSIDERED A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR FACTUAL SITUATION INVOLVING THE PROCUREMENT OF A NUMBER OF ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION BY FORMAL ADVERTISING. THE OFFEROR WHO SUBMITTED A LOWER PRICE ON THE ITEM RECEIVED AN AWARD FOR A BASIC QUANTITY WHICH WAS LESS THAN THE QUANTITY AWARDED TO ANOTHER HIGHER-PRICED OFFEROR SINCE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT A COMBINATION OF AWARDS ON THAT BASIS RESULTED IN THE LOWEST OVERALL COST TO THE GOVERNMENT. THE SOLICITATION PROVISIONS IN THAT CASE DID NOT PRESCRIBE MULTIPLE AWARDS AS HERE; THE SOLE PURPOSE WAS TO SATISFY THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS AT THE LOWEST COST. OUR OFFICE DENIED THE PROTEST FROM THE LOWER OFFEROR.

THE PRICE COMPARISON FURNISHED IN YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 11, 1970, IS NOT COMPLETE IN THAT IT DOES NOT CONSIDER THE OVERALL COST FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF MAINTAINING FOUR SOURCES OF SUPPLY. PURSUANT TO OUR REVIEW WE FIND THAT ARMY'S COMBINATION OF AWARDS RESULTED IN THE LOWEST OVERALL COST TO THE GOVERNMENT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHILE THE LOWEST INDIVIDUAL OFFEROR DID NOT RECEIVE THE MAXIMUM QUANTITY, WE DO NOT FIND THIS TO BE A BASIS FOR UPSETTING THE AWARDS MADE. HOWEVER, WE CAN APPRECIATE YOUR OBJECTIONS TO SUCH AN AWARD PROCEDURE AND WE ARE SUGGESTING TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY BY LETTER OF TODAY THAT ALTERNATE PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR SUCH SITUATIONS.

REGARDING THE NUMBER OF AWARDS MADE, THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS STATED THAT IT WAS EXPECTED THAT ONE OFFEROR MIGHT NOT BE SUCCESSFUL. WE DO NOT THINK THE AWARDS SHOULD BE INVALIDATED FOR THIS REASON. AS ALREADY INDICATED, THE LOWEST COST TO THE GOVERNMENT ON THREE AWARDS WOULD HAVE BEEN HIGHER THAN UNDER THE AWARDS ACTUALLY MADE AND THE TERMS OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS LEFT OPEN THE POSSIBILITY OF AWARDS TO FOUR SOURCES. IN ADDITION, WE CAN ASSUME THAT THE OFFERORS TO THIS SOLICITATION WERE SUFFICIENTLY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES USED BY APSA TO RECOGNIZE THE POSSIBILITY THAT AWARDS WOULD BE MADE TO FOUR SOURCES.

YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE ACTUAL QUANTITY TO BE AWARDED IS GREATER THAN THE QUANTITY SPECIFIED IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (2,742,650 UNITS) IS BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ARMY WILL PURCHASE 250,000 UNITS PER MONTH FOR A 12-MONTH PERIOD. IN THIS REGARD THE RECORD INDICATES THAT UNDER THE CONTRACT AWARDS THE ARMY WILL PURCHASE APPROXIMATELY THE NUMBER OF UNITS SPECIFIED IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS SINCE, AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, NOT ALL OF THE CONTRACTS WILL BE FOR A 12-MONTH PERIOD. CONSEQUENTLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY BASIS TO THE CONTENTION THAT ARMY INCREASED THE QUANTITY WITHOUT A FORMAL AMENDMENT TO THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS.

FURTHER WE HAVE FOUND THAT NO BASIS TO QUESTION ARMY'S DETERMINATION THAT THE PROCUREMENT PLAN WAS CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING POLICY CONCERNING THE UTILIZATION OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED PLANTS. BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-76 PROVIDES THAT A GOVERNMENT COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY MAY BE AUTHORIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRENGTHENING MOBILIZATION READINESS. THE EVALUATION, FACTORS WERE ADDED TO THE PROPOSALS FROM THE GOVERNMENT- OWNED CONTRACTOR-OPERATED FACILITIES TO EQUALIZE ANY COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ADVISES THAT EVEN WITH RESPECT TO NEW BEDFORD IT MUST BE CONSIDERED THAT ONLY THE LAND AND BUILDINGS ARE PRIVATELY OWNED AND THE MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT IS GOVERNMENT OWNED.

WITH RESPECT TO NEW BEDFORD RECEIVING PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BECAUSE IT WAS LOCATED IN A LABOR SURPLUS AREA, PAGE 11 OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ENTITLED "LABOR SURPLUS AREA CONCERNS" STATED THAT THE PROCUREMENT WAS NOT SET ASIDE FOR LABOR SURPLUS AREA CONCERNS AND LABOR SURPLUS AREA CONCERNS WERE ELIGIBLE FOR A PREFERENCE ONLY IN THE EVENT OF TIE OFFERS, WHICH DID NOT OCCUR.

THE SECOND ISSUE CONCERNS YOUR OBJECTION TO INCLUDING AN EVALUATION FACTOR FOR ANTICIPATED REPAIRS TO GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. YOU URGE THAT THIS FACTOR WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL'S CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION AND THAT THE COSTS OF SUCH REPAIRS ARE CONJECTURAL.

APPARENTLY YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE CLAUSE IN ASPR 7-702.14, DEALING WITH MAINTENANCE, WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE FACILITIES CONTRACT WITH CHAMBERLAIN-NEW BEDFORD. THIS CLAUSE PROVIDES THAT NORMAL MAINTENANCE WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR BUT THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL BEAR THE EXPENSE OF SUCH REPAIRS WHICH ARE IN EXCESS OF THE CONTRACTOR'S DEFINED LIABILITY.

WITH RESPECT TO THE INCLUSION OF A FACTOR FOR REPAIR OF GOVERNMENT OWNED FACILITIES, PAGE 24 OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS STATED THAT THE USE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY WAS ON AN "AS IS" AND "WHERE IS" BASIS AND PAGE 82 OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE ASPR 7 104.24(E) WHICH IS THE CLAUSE FOR FURNISHING GOVERNMENT PROPERTY ON AN "AS IS" BASIS. CHAMBERLAIN-SCRANTON PROPOSAL STATED THAT THE OFFER WAS BASED ON HAVING THE "AS IS" CLAUSE IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY. IN RESPONSE TO AN INQUIRY FROM THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, CHAMBERLAIN- SCRANTON REPRESENTATIVES ADVISED THAT THERE WOULD BE NO REPAIR COST TO GOVERNMENT EQUIPMENT AT THAT PLANT SINCE GOVERNMENT EQUIPMENT AT SCRANTON HAD BEEN EXTENSIVELY MODERNIZED AND REHABILITATED. HOWEVER, THIS APPARENTLY WAS NOT THE CASE WITH RESPECT TO GOVERNMENT EQUIPMENT IN THE DONOVAN OR SPERRY RAND PLANTS. YOUR PROPOSAL STATED THAT:

E. PRICES ARE BASED UPON THE PREMISE THAT MAINTENANCE REPAIR PARTS COSTS INCIDENT TO KEEPING THE AGING GOVERNMENT-OWNED EQUIPMENT IN OPERATION WILL BE SHARED ON AN 80%-20% BASIS, WITH THE GOVERNMENT PAYING 80%. CHAMBERLAIN WILL PAY FOR 20% OF THE REPAIR PARTS COSTS AS REPRESENTING "NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR" AND WILL PAY FOR ALL OF THE IN HOUSE MAINTENANCE LABOR COSTS.

F. IN CONNECTION WITH (E) ABOVE, PRICES ARE BASED UPON THE PREMISE THAT THE "AS-IS, WHERE-IS" CLAUSE ON PAGE 25, PARA. 3(A) OF THE BID REQUEST WILL BE DELETED FROM ANY CONTRACT AWARDED AS A RESULT OF THIS PROPOSAL.

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, A FACTOR FOR REPAIRS TO GOVERNMENT-OWNED EQUIPMENT WAS INCLUDED IN THE EVALUATION OF ALL OF THE OFFERS. WE FIND NO BASIS TO OBJECT TO THE EVALUATION OF THE REPAIR FACTOR. IN ANY CASE, IT IS REPORTED THAT EVEN IF THIS FACTOR IS EXCLUDED FROM THE EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS, THE COMBINATION OF AWARDS AS MADE STILL RESULT IN THE LOWEST OVERALL COST TO THE GOVERNMENT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THIS CONTENTION CONSTITUTES A BASIS FOR UPSETTING THE AWARDS.

YOU NEXT CONTEND THAT MAKING THE AWARD TO SPERRY RAND LATER THAN THE OTHER THREE AWARDS IS CONTRARY TO NORMAL PROCUREMENT PRACTICE WHICH DICTATES SIMULTANEOUS AWARDS TO PREVENT PREAWARD PRICING DISCLOSURES. WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER YOU WERE PREJUDICED BECAUSE A LETTER CONTRACT TO SPERRY RAND WAS NOT AWARDED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE AWARDS TO THE OTHER THREE OFFERORS, THE SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW DATE FEBRUARY 11, 1971, FROM APSA, STATES AS FOLLOWS:

*** SINCE LOUISIANA (SPERRY RAND) DID NOT RUN OUT OF PRODUCTION UNTIL MARCH 1971, A LETTER CONTRACT AWARD TO THAT PLANT COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED. COST DATA NECESSARY TO DEFINITIZE THE THREE LETTER CONTRACTS AWARDED AND THE ONE FIRM CONTRACT AWARD HAVE BEEN REQUESTED AND RECEIVED FROM ALL FOUR PARTICIPANTS. NEGOTIATIONS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED AND ARE CONTINUING UTILIZING COST DATA FROM EACH OFFEROR. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE IN WHAT WAY DELAY OF LOUISIANA'S AWARD HAS HAD AN EFFECT UPON THE QUANTITY WHICH CHAMBERLAIN WAS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE PURSUANT TO THE SOLICITATION TERMS. NOR IS IT EVIDENT WHAT PREJUDICE TO CHAMBERLAIN'S PRICES IS ESTABLISHED BY REVELATION OF ITS AWARD PRICES AFTER SELECTION OF AWARDEES. AND IF IT SHOULD BE ALLEGED THAT LOUISIANA ATTAINED AN UNNAMED ADVANTAGE IN BEING AWARE OF CHAMBERLAIN'S AWARD PRICES AFTER THE SELECTION, HOW THIS "ADVANTAGE" WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE RESULTS OF THE AWARDS, THE PRICES OF CHAMBERLAIN, OR THE FINAL PRICE TO BE ESTABLISHED FOR LOUISIANA, IS NOT CLEAR. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION TO MAKE THE AWARDS NONSIMULTANEOUSLY WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE FACTUAL SITUATION, WAS APPROVED BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, AND WAS NONPREJUDICIAL TO ANY OF THE COMPETITORS.

WE DO NOT FIND ANY BASIS TO DISAGREE WITH ARMY.

FINALLY, YOU QUESTION WHETHER THE FACTOR FOR EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION WAS PROPERLY INCLUDED. THE "TRANSPORTATION EVALUATION" PROVISION PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS IN PARAGRAPH (3) ON PAGE 40 OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS:

(3) FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVALUATING OFFERS AND FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE, THE DESTINATIONS AND PERCENTAGES OF THE TOTAL PROCUREMENT QUANTITY OF SUPPLIES FOR EACH DESTINATION WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE AS FOLLOWS:

TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF PROCUREMENT QUANTITY

LOUISIANA AAP - RAIL AND MOTOR: DOYLINE, LOUISIANA, 65%.

RAVENNA AAP - RAIL: ATLAS, OHIO, 35%.

MOTOR: RAVENNA AAP, OHIO.

EVALUATION WILL BE BASED ON DISTRIBUTION OF SUPPLIES FROM ALL PROCUREMENT SOURCES) TO THE DESTINATIONS) DETERMINED TO BE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT. THIS EVALUATION MAY INVOLVE QUANTITIES OF SUPPLIES FROM PROCUREMENT SOURCES NOT INCLUDED IN THIS SOLICITATION BUT WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL PROCUREMENT QUANTITY PERCENTAGES WHICH ARE DESIGNATED ABOVE FOR EACH DESTINATION.

IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT THE EVALUATION FOR TRANSPORTATION ON THE BASIS OF SHIPPING TO ALTERNATE DESTINATIONS WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS OR THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS VIOLATED A STATUTE OR REGULATION. CF. B-171306, MARCH 24, 1971. MOREOVER, WE HAVE NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT ARMY DID NOT USE THE CORRECT RATES IN EVALUATING FOR TRANSPORTATION.

FOR THESE REASONS, YOUR PROTEST IS DENIED.