Protester Suggested an Alternative Delivery Deadline. Did the Protester Take Exception to the Deadline Stated in the Solicitation?

The solicitation required a 90-day delivery deadline. In its proposal, the protester proposed a 150-day deadline. GAO found that the agency had reasonably rejected the protester’s proposal for taking exception to the solicitation. A firm delivery deadline is a material solicitation term. The protester never affirmatively committed to meeting the deadline prescribed by the solicitation.

Wright Tool Company, GAO B-420553

Background

The Army issued an RFP seeking to award an IDIQ contract for the supply of tools. The solicitation provided that the tools had to be delivered within 90 days of an order.

Wright Tool Company submitted a proposal. But in its proposal, Wright proposed a 150 day delivery on the first order to account for supply chain disruptions. The Army rejected Wright’s proposal, finding that the company had taken exception to the solicitation. Wright protested

Analysis

Wright argued it had not taken exception to the 90-day delivery, but instead merely suggested the 150-day deadline to account for current market realities.

GAO didn’t buy it. The 90-day delivery was an unambiguous requirement. A firm delivery date set forth in a solicitation is a material requirement. The solicitation required offerors to firmly state their ability to meet the delivery requirement. Wright appeared to equivocate stating that it would strive to meet the deadline, but did not affirmatively commit. The agency did not err in rejecting its proposal.

Wright is represented by James Y Rayis of Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C.. The agency is represented by Wade L. Brown and Russell W. Bottom of the Army. GAO attorneys Hannah G. Barnes and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.

[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/GAO-Wright-Tool-Company.pdf” title=”GAO – Wright Tool Company”]