Mathews Associates, Inc.

B-270210 Feb 20, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Mathews asserts that the technical evaluation was unreasonable and that the resulting source selection was improper. The technical factors were said to be more important than cost. The RFP also specifically provided that the BB-590/U evaluation factor was of far greater weight than any of the remaining factors. The RFP explicitly noted that in some instances the minimum technical requirements in the SOW were less than the requirements in the applicable military specification. A deficiency was defined in the RFP as the failure of a proposed battery to meet a minimum technical requirement identified in the SOW. An advantage was defined as an instance in which a proposed battery met or exceeded both the minimum technical requirements identified in the SOW and the corresponding military specification. View Decision Matter of: Mathews Associates, Inc. File: B-270210 Date: February 20, 1996 Agency reasonably considered and evaluated the characteristics of offered rechargeable batteries in selecting the higher priced, technically superior proposal for award. Attorneys DECISION Mathews Associates, Inc. protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to Bren-Tronics, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAB07-95-R-G305. Mathews asserts that the technical evaluation was unreasonable and that the resulting source selection was improper. We deny the protest. The agency issued the RFP on January 9, 1995, seeking proposals for a fixed-price, indefinite quantity, 4-year contract to provide quantities of five specified portable rechargeable battery systems. The statement of work (SOW) attached to the solicitation included a description of a portion of the battery requirement as "BB-503/TAS, BB-516/U, BB-588/U and BB-590/U military rechargeable Nickel-Cadmium batteries or their replacement by rechargeable batteries of alternate design offering better value to the government." The SOW required the contractor to produce Nickel Cadmium batteries that would meet the requirements of military specification MIL-B-49436 revision B, or batteries of alternate design that would meet or exceed requirements proposed by the contractor and accepted by the government. [1] The SOW also listed certain minimum requirements that proposed alternate batteries must meet. The RFP stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, taking into consideration technical, cost, and performance risk. The technical factors were said to be more important than cost, and significantly more important than performance risk. The RFP listed the following six most heavily weighted evaluation factors, in descending order of importance: (1) the BB-590/U, (2) the BB-X847/U, (3) the BB-588/U, and (4) the BB-516/U rechargeable battery systems, (5) the state of charge option for each battery, and (6) the BB-503/TAS rechargeable battery system. The RFP also specifically provided that the BB-590/U evaluation factor was of far greater weight than any of the remaining factors. The RFP stated that each rechargeable battery system would be evaluated to determine the degree to which it met or exceeded the minimum technical requirements identified in the SOW. The RFP explicitly noted that in some instances the minimum technical requirements in the SOW were less than the requirements in the applicable military specification. A deficiency was defined in the RFP as the failure of a proposed battery to meet a minimum technical requirement identified in the SOW, and a disadvantage as the failure of a proposed battery to meet a minimum technical requirement identified in the applicable military specification, but where the battery met or exceeded a minimum technical requirement identified in the SOW. An advantage was defined as an instance in which a proposed battery met or exceeded both the minimum technical requirements identified in the SOW and the corresponding military specification. The degree to which these ratings affected the final rating was determined by the relative importance of the performance characteristic at issue. In this regard, the solicitation included a Desired Performance Matrix, which listed various performance requirements, such as capacity and weight, and their corresponding importance in the evaluation. For example, while capacity was weighted as a highly important performance requirement, cycle life was of low importance. [2] The RFP also included a section titled "Enhanced Performance (Desired)," which instructed all offerors to provide sufficient information to allow the agency to assess the degree to which the proposal enhanced the performance of each system above the minimum requirements. Two offerors submitted proposals.