Protest challenging the inclusion of on-ramp procedures for the potential award of additional blanket purchase agreements is denied, where the proposed procedures are consistent with the FAR and would not result in prejudice to the initial awardees.
Al Baz 2000 General Trading & Contracting Company W.L.L. challenged the terms of an Army request for proposals for the establishment of multiple blanket purchase agreements for the provision of non-tactical vehicle leasing and maintenance services in the United States Central Command area of responsibility. Al Baz challenged the agency’s inclusion of onramp procedures for the potential award of additional BPAs.
The RFP included on-ramp procedures for the purposes of adding additional contractors to the pool for leases in Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE; or creating new pools of vendors in other countries within the CENTCOM area of responsibility. The RFP specified that the on-ramp procedures could be implemented at any time by reopening the competition and utilizing the same basis of award and same contractual terms and conditions established in the initial RFP.
Al Baz protested this language, arguing that these procedures would result in unfair competition because new potential offerors would have insight into the initial BPA awardees’ unit and total prices. In response, the agency took corrective action by clarifying the on-ramp requirement in more detail. The Army advised offerors that the use of on-ramp procedures was a Department of Defense best practice and would help to ensure adequate competition. The agency also explained that prices established would be ceiling prices, and that offerors could lower its prices for individual orders. The Army also advised it would not disclose unit prices during debriefings, in order to protect the competitive environment.
Al Baz filed another protest on the same grounds, arguing that BPA holders would have insight into the initial BPA awardees’ total prices, and that new potential BPA holders would have to account for less risk, given that they would only have to account for a shorter period of performance and they would have a better understanding of market conditions at the time the BPAs are established. In response, the Army noted that the on-ramp procedures are authorized by the FAR and that the protester cannot allege a credible likelihood of harm from the release of its total evaluated price or the alleged risk differential.
GAO agreed, first finding that Al Baz failed to identify any legal prohibition on the on-ramp procedures. Further, GAO could discern no reasonable possibility of competitive prejudice from the disclosure of the initial awardees’ total evaluated prices. In this case, the total evaluated price would be calculated by summing the proposed ceiling prices for more than 1,200 contract line item numbers. GAO saw no method by which a potential offeror on a future on-ramp procurement could reasonably discern confidential proprietary or business pricing information based on the total evaluated price.
Finally, GAO found Al Baz’s concern about risk to be misplaced. Al Baz appeared to argue that new offerors would be able to propose lower ceiling prices, due to increased knowledge of the requirements and shorter performance period, but GAO noted that all BPA holders would be able to proposal lower prices based on actual market conditions at the time the agency solicits an order. Accordingly, GAO found no reasonable basis to conclude that initial BPA holders would somehow be disadvantaged by future competitors.
Al Baz 2000 General Trading & Contracting Company W.L.L. is represented by Udhay Bhasin and Jeffry Raji. The government is represented by Jonathan A. Hardage and Richard M. Murphy, Department of the Army. GAO attorneys Evan D. Wesser and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.
