Protest alleging that agency improperly found protester ineligible for award is denied. The solicitation, which was for water handling services, provided that a tender of water could not exceed the manufacturer’s vehicle or axle weight limits. The agency found the protester ineligible because its tender exceeded the manufacturer’s axle rate limit. The protester argued that the weight requirement was disjunctive—a tender only needed to satisfy either the vehicle or the axle limit. GAO, however, found that the requirement was conjunctive—offerors needed to satisfy both the vehicle and axle limit. The protester also argued that the agency should have allowed for weight variance to account for differences in scales. But nothing in the solicitation indicated that weight requirements would include a variance.
The Forest Service issued a solicitation seeking water handling services for dust abatement and firefighting in California. The solicitation required that no tender of water shall exceed the manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight rating or gross axle weight rating per axle. Offerors were required to include documents on their proposals that showed their equipment’s vehicle weight rating and axel weight rating for each axle.
49er Pressure Wash and Water Service, Inc. submitted a proposal in response to the solicitation. One of vehicles 49er proposed had a gross front axle rating of 12,000 pounds. But the water tender 49er proposed for that vehicle was 12,020 pounds. The Forest Service determined that 49er was ineligible for award because its tender exceeded the manufacturer’s front axle weight rating by 20 pounds. 49er protested with GAO.
49er argued that the Forest Service’s interpretation of the weight requirements was unreasonable. The solicitation stated that no water tender should exceed the vehicle weight rating or the axle weight rating. 49er read this as disjunctive, meaning that it could satisfy the requirement by providing either (1) a tender that did not exceed the vehicle weight rating, or (2) a tender that did not exceed the axle weight rating. While 49er’s tender exceeded the axle weight rating, it did not exceed the vehicle weight rating. Thus, 49er believed it had complied with the solicitation.
But GAO read this requirement as conjunctive, that is, offerors were required to provide equipment that did not exceed the vehicle weight rating and the axle weight rating. Indeed, the RFP expressly required offerors to submit documentation for each type of weight rating. There was nothing in the solicitation that indicated offerors only needed to satisfy one of the weight requirements.
49er also contended that the Forest Service erred by not allowing for a measurement variation factor. 49er noted that a previous solicitation as well as California regulations provided for a weight variation factor to account for the type of scale used. 49er alleged that if the Forest Service had applied this variance, its axle weight would have been below 12,000 pounds. But GAO was unpersuaded, noting that nothing in the solicitation indicated that the weight requirements would include a variation allowance. To the extent 49er believed the solicitation should have included a variance, that was a challenge to the terms of the solicitation that was now untimely.
