Heimann Systems, Inc.

B-272182 Sep 09, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that evaluation of technical and price proposals was improper is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. Use of price scoring formula in the evaluation of proposals is not objectionable merely because the solicitation did not inform offerors that the formula would be used. Offerors were required to submit technical and price proposals. The technical proposals and samples were to be evaluated under the following criteria: meeting specifications (60 of 100 available points). The technical evaluation was worth 60 percent of the overall score. Were included in the competitive range. These proposals were scored as follows[1]: Offeror Raw Technical Score Normalized Technical Score Price Score Price Total Score Heimann 96.6 57.99 31.78 $8. View Decision Matter of: Heimann Systems, Inc. File: B-272182 Date: September 9, 1996 * Redacted Division Protest that evaluation of technical and price proposals was improper is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. Use of price scoring formula in the evaluation of proposals is not objectionable merely because the solicitation did not inform offerors that the formula would be used. Attorneys DECISION Heimann Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to EG&G Astrophysics Research Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. MS-96-R-0006, issued by the United States Marshals Service (USMS), Department of Justice, for the acquisition and installation of x-ray security screening systems. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price, indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery contract for 1 base year, with four 1-year options. Offerors were required to submit technical and price proposals, plus a sample x-ray screening unit for testing and evaluation. The technical proposals and samples were to be evaluated under the following criteria: meeting specifications (60 of 100 available points); degree to which system's performance and features exceed specifications, especially "resolution" and "penetration" (20 points); execution plan, resumes, corporate overview, and corporate references (10 points); and past performance (10 points). The technical evaluation was worth 60 percent of the overall score, and the price evaluation 40 percent, with award to be made on a best value basis. Of six proposals received by the closing date, two--Heimann's and EG&G's-- were included in the competitive range. These proposals were scored as follows[1]: Offeror Raw Technical Score Normalized Technical Score Price Score Price Total Score Heimann 96.6 57.99 31.78 $8,703,620 89.74 EG&G 76.2 43.80 40.00 $6,915,850 83.80 Discussions were held with Heimann and EG&G. Heimann was informed that its proposal was technically acceptable, with no deficiencies, but two weaknesses were identified, only one of which is relevant here. The sample units were required to undergo a "power supply interruption" test, the purpose of which was to determine how long it would take for a unit to automatically power-up and resume functioning should power be cut. Heimann was advised that, during the test, black lines (vertical bands) appeared across the monitor of Heimann's unit following the restoration of power. In addition, Heimann was told that its price was considered "somewhat excessive." EG&G, whose proposal was found conditionally technically acceptable, was informed of two deficiencies and two weaknesses in its proposal. Both offerors were advised that they would be given 4 days to make any repairs or changes to their sample units, after which best and final offers (BAFO) were to be submitted. Based on the BAFOs and retesting, EG&G's unit was found technically acceptable because all cited deficiencies and weaknesses had been corrected. Although Heimann's unit passed the power interruption test, as it had before, the black lines which appeared on the screen following restart still appeared. Heimann corrected the other cited weakness in its proposal and reduced its price. The BAFO scoring was as follows: Offeror Raw Technical Score Normalized Technical Score Price Score Price Total Score Heimann 99 59.40 35.36 $7,824,240 94.76 EG&G 91.6 54.96 40.00 $6,915,850 94.96 Because EG&G's proposal received a higher total overall score, and offered a significantly lower evaluated price than Heimann's, it was judged the best value to the government, and award was made to EG&G on May 21. Heimann challenges both the technical and price evaluations. In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is not our role to reevaluate proposals. Rather, our Office examines the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and in accord with the RFP's stated evaluation criteria.