United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 

The decision issued on the date below was subject to a 

GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been 

approved for public release. 

Decision 

Matter of: ArmorWorks Enterprises LLC 

File: B-405450 

Date: October 28, 2011 

Christopher R. Yukins, Esq., and Avi M. Baldinger, Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, for the 

protester. 

Joseph R. Weidenburner, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. 

Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest arguing that agency improperly rejected proposal as technically 

unacceptable is denied where the protester’s challenge is based on an unreasonable 

interpretation of the solicitation’s requirements. 

DECISION 

ArmorWorks Enterprises LLC, of Chandler, Arizona, protests the rejection of its 

proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPM1C1-10-R-0151, issued by the 

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts 

(ESAPI). The protester contends that the agency unreasonably determined that it 

had failed to submit required ballistic tests results. 

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND 

The RFP, which was issued on January 14, 2011, contemplates the award of three 

3-year (a base plus two option years) indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts 

for ESAPIs, which are plates that are inserted into an outer tactical vest as part of a 

body armor system. The first contract is for 50 percent of the total estimated 
quantity; the second contract, 30 percent; and the third contract, 20 percent.1

 The 

solicitation contemplates first article testing after award. 

The solicitation provides for the evaluation of proposals on the basis of several 

non-price factors, the first of which is “Passing Ballistic Test Results.” The RFP 

advises that proposals will be evaluated under the foregoing factor on a pass/fail 

basis, and that failing proposals will be rejected without further evaluation. RFP at 

53. To receive a passing rating under the factor, offerors must provide “passing 

ballistic test results in accordance with First Article Test (FAT) criteria,” and the 

results must demonstrate “the offeror’s ability to meet the complete ballistic 

requirements for FAT found under specification CO/PD 04-19D, CO/PD 04-19E or 

CO/PD 04-19F.” RFP at 52; Amend. 0002 at 2. 

CO/PD 04-19D, CO/PD 04-19E, and CO/PD 04-19F are Product Descriptions for the 

ESAPI. (Version -19E, issued on May 4, 2010, superseded version -19D, and version 

-19F, issued on November 24, 2010, superseded version -19E.) All of the versions of 

the purchase description include a number of ballistic test requirements for FAT. 

Among the required tests is a weatherometer resistance (or weathered) test, which 

involves ballistic testing of the plates after they have been exposed to a specified 

weathering cycle (involving light and moisture), and altitude testing, which involves 

ballistic testing of the plates after they have been placed in an air pressure chamber. 

On April 28, ArmorWorks submitted a proposal for the small business set-aside 

portion of the RFP. With its proposal, the protester included the results of first 

article testing accepted by the Marine Corps under a Corps contract for ESAPIs to 

which CO/PD 04-19D applied. The first article testing results accepted by the Marine 

Corps did not, however, include the weatherometer resistance or altitude tests; the 

Marine Corps evidently waived these tests for ArmorWorks during ArmorWorks’ 

performance of that contract. The contracting officer concluded that ArmorWorks’ 

proposal failed to comply with the requirements of the first evaluation factor. By 

letter of July 19, the contracting officer notified ArmorWorks as follows: 

[Your proposal] is being removed from the competition because of 

your firm’s failure to be in compliance with the terms of the 

solicitation. Review of the FAT ballistic reports revealed that Altitude 

and Weathered Testing were not performed, as required by CO/PD 

04-19 Rev D. In the absence of these two tests, [the proposal] fails to 

demonstrate the ability to meet the complete ballistic requirements for 

FAT, under CO/PD 04-19 Rev D and as specified by the solicitation. 

 

1

 Portions 1 and 2 were solicited on an unrestricted basis, whereas portion 3 was set 

aside for competition among small business concerns. 

Page 2 B-405450 
Contracting Officer Letter to Protester, July 19, 2011. The agency furnished the 

protester with a debriefing on July 26, and ArmorWorks protested to our Office on 

July 29. 

DISCUSSION 

The protester contends that the agency improperly rejected its proposal based on an 

unreasonable reading of the solicitation’s ballistic testing submission requirements. 

In this regard, ArmorWorks maintains that the solicitation language requiring 

ballistic test results demonstrating an offeror’s “ability to meet the complete ballistic 

requirements for FAT found under specification CO/PD 04-19D, CO/PD 04-19E, or 

CO/PD 04-19F” merely required offerors to provide the results of the tests required 

by the agency for which the applicable FAT was performed. In other words, since 

the Marine Corps accepted first article test results that did not include the weathered 

and altitude tests, ArmorWorks was not required to further demonstrate compliance 

with these two tests. 

Where a dispute exists as to the actual meaning of a particular solicitation provision, 

our Office will resolve the matter by reading the solicitation as a whole and in a 

manner that gives effect to all its provisions; to be reasonable, an interpretation of a 

solicitation must be consistent with such a reading. The Boeing Co., B-311344 et al., 

June 18, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 114 at 35. 

Notwithstanding the protester’s arguments to the contrary, there is only one 

reasonable interpretation of the language in question, which is that offerors were 

required to provide results demonstrating compliance with all of the FAT 

specification’s ballistic testing requirements. Specifically, the solicitation required 

offerors to submit “passing ballistic test results in accordance with First Article Test 

(FAT) criteria” and provided that the test results must demonstrate the offeror’s 

ability to meet “the complete ballistic requirements” for the FAT found under the 

specification. There simply is no basis to conclude that the agency required anything 

other than proof of having passed all the required FAT tests. While the protester 

contends that because agencies such as the Marine Corps have previously waived 

the requirement for the weathered and altitude tests during FAT, it reasonably 

assumed that DLA intended to exclude those tests from the required tests here, 

where solicitation language is clear, it should not be interpreted in a manner 

inconsistent with the clearly expressed intent merely because different requirements 

have been imposed in the past. In this connection, we have repeatedly observed that 

each procurement stands alone. Connectec Co., Inc., B-310460, Nov. 27, 2007, 2007 

CPD ¶ 211 at 3. Moreover, DLA points out that under its recent contract with 

ArmorWorks for ESAPIs, it did not waive the requirement for weathering and 

Page 3 B-405450 
altitude testing during FAT.2

 Accordingly, the record does not even support the 

protester’s assertion that the parties had established a course of dealing whereby the 

weathered and altitude tests were waived as part of the FAT testing process. 

ArmorWorks also argues that the requirement for offerors to demonstrate 

compliance with all of the specification’s ballistic test requirements constitutes a 

preaward qualification requirement that could not be properly imposed without 

adhering to the procedural requirements set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) Subpart 9.2.3 Along similar lines, the protester argues that requiring prior FAT 

test results demonstrating compliance with all of the specification’s ballistic test 

requirements is restrictive of competition. 

We will not consider these complaints because they are challenges to the terms of 

the solicitation, and, as such, to be timely, needed to be raised prior to the closing 

date for receipt of proposals. See Bid Protest Regulation, 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1) 

(2011). In connection with the former argument, the protester maintains that it did 

not have a reason to object to the requirement for prior FAT results until it realized 

that the agency was interpreting the requirement in a manner inimical to its interests 

(that is, as requiring the submission of weathering and altitude test results). The 

particular tests required, however, have no bearing on the protester’s underlying 

argument that the requirement for test results was essentially a preaward 

qualification requirement. Accordingly, we do not agree with the protester that its 

basis for protest did not arise until it realized that application of the requirement 

would work to its prejudice. In any event, since, as discussed above, it was apparent 

 

2

 The agency furnished the following detailed explanation regarding the foregoing 

contract. The contract was awarded pursuant to RFP No. SPM1C1-06-R-0088, which 

required production and supply of ESAPIs. The solicitation included a requirement 

for a Product Demonstration Model (PDM), which was required to pass a number of 

ballistic tests consistent with CO/PD 04-19B. On April 2, 2007, the agency advised 

offerors that altitude and weathered testing would not be required for the PDM, and 

that two additional ambient tests would be substituted in their place. During the 

course of contract performance, ArmorWorks experienced production lot failures on 

a specific ESAPI design, which was then deleted from the contract. When 

ArmorWorks requested to reinstate that design into the contract, the agency 

responded that it would require new first article testing. This FAT was to be in 

accordance with the testing matrix outlined in CO/PD 04-19. ArmorWorks requested 

a waiver of altitude and weathered testing on this FAT requirement, but the waiver 

was denied. 

3

 For example FAR § 9.202(a)(1) requires that the agency prepare a written 

justification before establishing a qualification requirement stating why the 

qualification requirement is necessary and specifying why the qualification 

requirement must be demonstrated before contract award. 

Page 4 B-405450 
Page 5 B-405450 

from the face of the solicitation that offerors were required to provide passing 

results for all FAR test specifications, to be timely, ArmorWorks’ contention that this 

requirement was contrary to the FAR, or unduly restrictive of competition, needed to 

be raised prior to closing. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

General Counsel