OPS, Inc.

B-271835 Jul 31, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a Navy solicitation for carbine sound and flash suppressors, contending that the: (1) Navy failed to allow adequate time for bidders to submit bid samples; (2) Navy improperly downgraded the performance specifications to accommodate a particular bidder; and (3) solicitation improperly penalized bidders with state-of-the-art designs. GAO held that the: (1) protester had adequate time to produce its bid sample, since the procurement was synopsized 3 months prior to the solicitation notice and bidders were given 45 days to submit bid samples; (2) Navy did not violate full and open competition procedures or deliberately attempt to exclude the protester from competition; (3) Navy reasonably determined that the less restrictive performance standard met its minimum needs; and (4) Navy reasonably relaxed the specifications that exceeded its minimum needs to enhance competition. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter Of: OPS, Inc. File: B-271835 Date: July 31, 1996 Protest that agency did not permit sufficient time for offerors to submit product samples is denied where the agency permitted more than the statutorily required 30 days, adequate competition was expected, there is no indication that the agency deliberately attempted to exclude the protester from the procurement and, as the result of a pre-solicitation notice published in the Commerce Business Daily, the protester was made aware of the general requirement more than 4 months before the sample was due. The General Accounting Office generally will not consider a protest that an agency should use more restrictive specifications to meet its minimum needs. Protest that sound reduction requirement for suppressor improperly penalizes offerors with state-of-the-art design is denied where the requirement reasonably specifies the agency's minimum needs and the protester's objection is based on an inaccurate technical premise. Attorneys DECISION OPS, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-96-R-0023, issued by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division (Crane) for suppressors for the M4A1 Carbine.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND In December 1995, Crane synopsized in the Commerce Business Daily its intent to procure, using full and open competition, a minimum of 50 and a maximum of 10,000 suppressors for the M4A1 Carbine under an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract. The synopsis stated that the suppressor shall minimize sound and flash signature of the M4A1 Carbine firing M855 ammunition and shall have a minimum life of 3,000 rounds including frequent full automatic firing. The synopsis also stated that 10 product samples would be required to be submitted with each proposal. In response to the synopsis, the protester made six recommendations to the agency concerning the suppressor requirements. Four of the suggestions were adopted by the agency and were incorporated into the solicitation specifications. The other two, concerning the warranty and quick attach/detach function, were not incorporated because the agency determined that they conflicted with the user's requirements. The RFP was issued on March 26, 1996, with a May 10 closing date for submission of proposals and 10 product samples. The specifications set forth an acceptable range for each of the technical parameters of the suppressor, with the "goal" being the top of the range, for which additional technical credit would be given. With respect to reliability and rate of fire, the RFP required that the number of stoppages in the 3,000 round endurance test not be greater than the number of stoppages for the unsuppressed carbine, and provided that the enhanced goal for undergraded performance was 5,000 rounds. The RFP also provided that the sound reduction goals were 30 decibels or greater sound pressure level reduction in all frequencies (20 Hz - 20,000 Hz). The product samples were not required to meet all of the RFP specifications, but were required to meet the lowest parameter in the technical areas of interface, weight, size, and sound pressure level. PROTEST OPS protests that 6 weeks is not enough time for it to design, and develop product samples and respond to the RFP. OPS also objects that the agency "downgraded" the specifications in order to make it possible for a particular vendor to be able to meet the specifications. In this regard, OPS maintains that the endurance firing standard of 3,000 rounds is less than one third that required under the terms of an earlier contract awarded by a Department of the Army activity. OPS also argues that the sound pressure level requirement penalizes a design that raises the relatively low frequency gun shot sound to a very high frequency. ANALYSIS With respect to the procurement time frame, the agency maintains that offerors were given sufficient time to develop samples.