P.G. Electronics, Ltd.

B-261883 Nov 01, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency should have used price evaluation formulas other than those set forth in the solicitation is without merit. Agency's decision to permit a second operational capability demonstration on awardee's proposed equipment is unobjectionable where it was not prohibited by the solicitation and resulted in increased competition. Protest that awardee's proposed equipment should have been rejected because it was not "commercial-off-the-shelf" (COTS) equipment is denied where both the protester and the awardee offered tailored COTS equipment and the non-mandatory COTS requirement was not strictly applied to either offer. No warranty beyond the standard commercial warranty provided by the multicoupler manufacturer was required. View Decision Matter of: P.G. Electronics, Ltd. File: B-261883 Date: November 1, 1995 Protest that agency should have used price evaluation formulas other than those set forth in the solicitation is without merit; evaluation must be based on scheme in solicitation. Agency's decision to permit a second operational capability demonstration on awardee's proposed equipment is unobjectionable where it was not prohibited by the solicitation and resulted in increased competition. Protest that awardee's proposed equipment should have been rejected because it was not "commercial-off-the-shelf" (COTS) equipment is denied where both the protester and the awardee offered tailored COTS equipment and the non-mandatory COTS requirement was not strictly applied to either offer. Attorneys DECISION P.G. Electronics, Ltd. protests the award of a contract to Mu-Del Electronics, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTFA01-92-R-06593A, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for multicoupler devices which receive and distribute radio signals from a single antenna to no fewer than four receivers without a significant loss of either signal level or signal intelligence. P.G. objects to the evaluation of proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on September 1, 1994, contemplated the award of a 5-year fixed-price requirements contract for "base requirements" set forth in section B.1 of the schedule of items including multicoupler hardware and related support services, and "optional requirements" set forth in section B.2 of the schedule including routine and emergency repair services (contract line items (CLIN) Nos. 2201 and 2202, respectively) and various other optional CLINs. No warranty beyond the standard commercial warranty provided by the multicoupler manufacturer was required. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the lowest overall price for a technically compliant offer. Section M.4 of the RFP provided that overall price would be calculated by using the maximum estimated quantities set forth in the schedule of items. Technical compliance with non-mandatory requirements and mandatory requirements listed in the product description was to be evaluated on a "pass/fail" basis. Failure to meet at least 75 percent of the non-mandatory requirements could result in a determination of technical unacceptability; however, the agency reserved the right to waive non-mandatory requirements if determined to be in the government's best interest. Ten mandatory requirements were listed in the product description. The solicitation provided that the agency could, at its option, require an operational capabilities demonstration (OCD) to verify proposed equipment against the listed mandatory requirements. On November 22, P.G. and Mu-Del submitted initial proposals. P.G. submitted an alternate proposal that provided extended warranty coverage for all defects for a period of 10 years at a cost of 3 percent of the purchase price per year. Written discussions were then held and the FAA elected to require an OCD for Mu-Del. [1] As a result of the OCD which was witnessed and certified by an FAA engineer, Mu-Del's equipment was found to have met 9 of the 10 mandatory requirements. Subsequently, a second OCD was conducted and Mu-Del's equipment was found to be compliant with all 10 of the mandatory requirements. P.G. and Mu-Del submitted best and final offers on May 10, 1995. Both offers were found to have satisfied the technical requirements of the RFP and overall prices were calculated as follows: Mu-Del P.G. P.G. Alternate Hardware $ 5,522,169 $ 7,060,980 $ 7,060,980 Tech. Support $ 476,376 $ 488,507 $ 488,507 Repairs $ 2,257,500 $ 1,453,830 N/A Other Optional Items$ 1,439,380 $ 1,410,864 $1,410,864 Extended Warranty N/A N/A $ 1,059,147[2] Total $ 9,695,525 $10,414,181 $10,019,498 Accordingly, award was made to Mu-Del on the basis of its low evaluated price. This protest followed. PROTEST OVERVIEW P.G.