Shilog Limited, Inc.

B-261412.4 Nov 08, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated proposals using unstated evaluation factor is denied where area considered. Was part of the specified design evaluation factor. Protest that agency failed to hold meaningful discussions with protester is denied where record shows that agency reasonably led protester into the areas of its technical proposal that were deficient. Protest challenging agency's downgrading of proposed pump exhaust system is denied where the record shows the protester's competitive position was not prejudiced by this alleged error. REDACTED DECISION A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The RFP was issued on May 2. View Decision Matter of: Shilog Limited, Inc. File: B-261412.4 Date: November 8, 1995 *REDACTED DECISION Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated proposals using unstated evaluation factor is denied where area considered--benefits offered by smaller-sized pump unit--was part of the specified design evaluation factor. Protest that agency failed to hold meaningful discussions with protester is denied where record shows that agency reasonably led protester into the areas of its technical proposal that were deficient. Protest challenging agency's downgrading of proposed pump exhaust system is denied where the record shows the protester's competitive position was not prejudiced by this alleged error. Attorneys REDACTED DECISION A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. DECISION Shilog Limited, Inc. protests the award of a contract to W. S. Darley & Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00104-94-R-D014, issued by the Department of the Navy for portable emergency firefighting centrifugal pumps and associated special tool kits for use in damage control, dewatering, and firefighting operations on Navy ships. Shilog contends that the Navy improperly evaluated proposals under an unstated design factor which resulted in an improper upgrading of the awardee's technical proposal. Shilog also challenges the agency's technical evaluation of its proposed corrosion protection features and exhaust system as unreasonable and further alleges that the Navy never gave the firm an adequate opportunity to remedy these alleged deficiencies. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on May 2, 1994, as a total small business set-aside and contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite quantity contract for a base year and 4 option years to the offeror proposing the "best value" offer, based on a combination of price and technical factors specified in the RFP. [1] In addition to a price proposal, offerors were required to submit a detailed technical proposal which was to include acceptance test plan reports demonstrating compliance with various technical requirements set forth in the RFP's "Purchase Description," sample technical manuals, quality assurance plans, milestone production schedules, corrosion protection standards, and offered warranties. The RFP provided that technical proposals would be evaluated under the following five technical evaluation criteria, which were listed in "relative order of importance" in the RFP: (1) Corrosion Protection; (2) Performance; (3) Design; (4) Supportability; and (5) Quality Management. As specified in the RFP, the Navy required a fire pump composed of commercial products or commercial-type products to replace the existing P- 250 fire pump model currently used in the fleet. The RFP advised offerors that while the Navy's minimum technical needs were enunciated in the statement of work set forth in the "Purchase Description" at Section C of the RFP, in fact "[t]he government's needs are greater than that defined in section C; and therefore, offerors are encouraged to propose pump units which will yield improved performance." On the November 2 closing date, offers were received from three offerors, Darley, Mechanical Equipment Company (MECO), and Shilog. On November 21, the contracting officer requested a size determination from the Small Business Administration (SBA) to ascertain Shilog's eligibility for award. On December 16, the SBA determined that Shilog did not qualify as a small business for this procurement; consequently, the contracting officer advised Shilog that its offer was unacceptable. By separate letters dated December 21, the contracting officer advised Darley and MECO that the agency would conduct discussions with each offeror regarding various topics which were outlined in the letters.