Infrared Technologies Corporation--

B-255709.2 Sep 14, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest is sustained where record shows awardee's offer was technically unacceptable and did not affirmatively represent that firm would meet the required delivery schedule. Infrared contends that our earlier decision was erroneous. We have reexamined the record and our conclusions. The solicitation was originally issued as a brand name or equal IFB and requested fixed-price bids to furnish one commercial and three "ruggedized" versions of the Mitsubishi Model IR-M300 infrared thermal imager. The commercial version of the imager is to be used for ground testing while the ruggedized imagers are to be used on board the space shuttle to conduct various experiments. All of the offered imagers including the commercial model were required to have an internal six-filter wheel and a remote interface. View Decision Matter of: Infrared Technologies Corporation-- Reconsideration File: B-255709.2 Date: September 14, 1995 Protest is sustained where record shows awardee's offer was technically unacceptable and did not affirmatively represent that firm would meet the required delivery schedule. Attorneys DECISION We have reexamined the record and our conclusions. For the reasons stated below, we reverse our earlier decision and sustain Infrared's protest. The solicitation was originally issued as a brand name or equal IFB and requested fixed-price bids to furnish one commercial and three "ruggedized" versions of the Mitsubishi Model IR-M300 infrared thermal imager, or equal. The commercial version of the imager is to be used for ground testing while the ruggedized imagers are to be used on board the space shuttle to conduct various experiments. The IFB contained a list of salient characteristics and a descriptive literature clause which required firms offering equal products, rather than the brand name product, to provide detailed technical information to demonstrate that their offered product met or exceeded the salient characteristics. Among other things, all of the offered imagers including the commercial model were required to have an internal six-filter wheel and a remote interface. The ruggedized versions of the imagers were additionally required to meet detailed vibration requirements, that is, the imager had to operate properly under specified external vibration conditions. In response to the IFB, NASA received four bids. After reviewing the bids, NASA concluded that all were nonresponsive. Infrared's bid, which offered the name brand product, was determined nonresponsive because it stated that the vibration requirements for the ruggedized versions of the imager would not be met. Inframetrics's bid was found nonresponsive because the firm failed to sign the bid and did not submit a certificate of procurement integrity. The other two bids were found nonresponsive for failing to meet one or more of the salient characteristics. Because no responsive bids had been submitted, NASA converted the acquisition from sealed bidding to negotiation in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Secs. 14.404-1(e)(1) and 15.103. All four firms were notified of the agency's action and the reasons why their bids were found nonresponsive. In response to the agency's letter, Infrared submitted a list of questions to NASA relating to the vibration specification. The agency provided a response to Infrared's questions. Thereafter, the firm submitted another letter which stated that Infrared could meet the vibration requirement. (Infrared's second letter also contained additional questions to which the agency never responded.) After receiving Infrared's response, NASA found the firm's offer unacceptable; although Infrared had offered to comply with the vibration specification, NASA was not satisfied with what it viewed as a blanket offer of compliance to meet this requirement with no supporting data. As for Inframetrics--which offered an equal product rather than a name brand product--NASA obtained the firm's signature on its bid and also a properly executed certificate of procurement integrity. (The other two proposals in the competitive range were found technically unacceptable for various reasons.) Based on these results, NASA made award to Inframetrics, even though the firm had submitted the highest price ($439,500 compared to Infrared's price of $293,436) among the competing offerors. In making its award, NASA found that Inframetrics's offered equal product met all of the solicitation's salient characteristics. In its protest, Infrared argued that NASA had improperly rejected its offer because it had in fact proposed to meet the vibration requirements. Infrared also contended that Inframetrics's offer was technically unacceptable for a number of reasons, including that the firm's standard unit would not meet various salient characteristics within the required delivery period.