General Atronics Corporation

B-272685 Oct 23, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Proposed awardee's proposal is not mathematically unbalanced and therefore. GAC generally contends that Mikros's proposal is unbalanced and should not be considered eligible for award. The RFP was issued as a total small business set-aside and contemplated an award on the basis of initial proposals to the low-priced. Percentage weights were not disclosed in the RFP. [3] The RFP generally described the weights for the individual price elements and fiscal years in terms of an element or fiscal year being either "relatively" or "significantly" more important than the next single and/or combination of elements or fiscal years. The RFP defined an unbalanced proposal as one based on prices for basic and option quantities which were significantly less than cost for some items and on prices which were significantly overstated for other items. View Decision Matter of: General Atronics Corporation File: B-272685 Date: October 23, 1996 * Redacted Decision Proposed awardee's proposal is not mathematically unbalanced and therefore, could not properly be rejected as materially unbalanced, where there has been no showing of nominal prices for some items and enhanced prices for other items, and where the awardee's price basically remains level over the base and option years of the contract. Attorneys DECISION General Atronics Corporation (GAC) protests the proposed award of a contract to Mikros Systems Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00039-96-R-0030(S), issued by the Department of the Navy, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, for common shipboard data terminal set hardware, training, and ancillary support services. GAC generally contends that Mikros's proposal is unbalanced and should not be considered eligible for award. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued as a total small business set-aside and contemplated an award on the basis of initial proposals to the low-priced, technically acceptable offeror for firm line item quantities for the base period and for option quantities for fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2000. The RFP described a complex scheme for the evaluation of price proposals. The RFP basically provided that an offeror's evaluated price for each fiscal year would be determined by adding together the following price elements: (a) prices for firm hardware line items; [1] (b) the average of the unit prices of the government's preselected hardware option order quantities; [2] (c) prices for optional training line items; (d) prices for on-call engineering services; and (e) prices for interim support items. An offeror's evaluated price for each fiscal year would be added together to arrive at the offeror's total evaluated price. The RFP also provided that the individual price elements within a fiscal year, as listed above, and an offeror's evaluated price for the sequential fiscal years would each, respectively, be weighted in descending order of importance. Percentage weights were not disclosed in the RFP. [3] The RFP generally described the weights for the individual price elements and fiscal years in terms of an element or fiscal year being either "relatively" or "significantly" more important than the next single and/or combination of elements or fiscal years. Finally, the RFP advised that a materially unbalanced proposal could be rejected as unacceptable. The RFP defined an unbalanced proposal as one based on prices for basic and option quantities which were significantly less than cost for some items and on prices which were significantly overstated for other items. GAC and Mikros, both small business concerns, submitted timely proposals. The following is a summary of GAC's and Mikros' raw unit prices for price elements (a) and (b): MIKROS GAC Base--$[deleted]------ Base--$[deleted]------ Small Incremental Large Incremental Small Incremental Large Incremental FY 96--$[deleted] $[deleted] FY 96--$[deleted] $[deleted] FY 97--$[deleted] $[deleted] FY 97--$[deleted] $[deleted] FY 98--$[deleted] $[deleted] FY 98--$[deleted] $[deleted] FY 99--$[deleted] $[deleted] FY 99--$[deleted] $[deleted] FY 00--$[deleted] $[deleted] FY 00--$[deleted] $[deleted] The contracting officer concluded, based on the price evaluation scheme described in the RFP, that Mikros' total weighted evaluated price was approximately 15-percent lower than GAC's total weighted evaluated price. In accordance with the terms of the RFP, the agency proposes to award a contract to Mikros, the low-priced, technically acceptable offeror. GAC challenges the agency's evaluation of price proposals, principally contending that Mikros' proposal was unbalanced, making the proposal ineligible for award. [4] Our review of the record does not support GAC's contention that Mikros submitted a materially unbalanced proposal.