Symetrics Industries, Inc., B-274246.3; B-274246.4; B-

Symetrics Industries, Inc., B-274246.3; B-274246.4; B- BNUMBER: B-274246.3; B-274246.4; B-274246.5 DATE: August 20, 1997 TITLE: Symetrics Industries, Inc., B-274246.3; B-274246.4; B- 274246.5, August 20, 1997 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Symetrics Industries, Inc. File: B-274246.3; B-274246.4; B-274246.5 Date:August 20, 1997 Edward J. Kinberg, Esq., for the protester. Sophia L. Rafatjah, Esq., Tracor, Inc., the intervenor. Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., and John E. Lariccia, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Argument that agency was required to amend the solicitation upon receiving information that funds were unavailable for the purchase of a significant portion of an estimated quantity included in the request for proposals for an indefinite quantity/indefinite delivery order contract is sustained where the record shows that the change in quantity was material and there was a reasonable possibility that the protester was prejudiced by the agency's failure to amend the solicitation. DECISION Symetrics Industries, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Tracor, Inc. by the Department of the Air Force, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. F33657-96-R-0001, issued for the purchase of Lots IV through VII of the AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispenser System (CMDS). Symetrics argues that the evaluation of proposals was unreasonable because it was based on a flawed quantity estimate, which resulted in an improper award decision. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The AN/ALE-47 CMDS is an electronic warfare system used by the Army, Navy and Air Force to protect aircraft from hostile missile attacks. The system discharges chaff cartridges and decoy flares to distract ground-launched missiles aimed at aircraft.[1] Five distinct line replaceable units (LRU) comprise the system in varying numbers and configurations depending on the aircraft involved. These LRUs are a control-display unit, a programmer, a switch assembly, a digital sequencer, and a dispenser assembly. The RFP was issued in October 1996, and contemplated the award of a 4-year fixed-price indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value to the government.[2] The RFP explained that the proposal with the best value would be "the most advantageous offer, price and other factors considered . . . providing the best mix of utility, technical quality, business aspects, risks, and price for a given application." RFP sec. M.1.0. The RFP advised that each proposal would be evaluated in four areas, in descending order of importance: technical, schedule, cost/price--most probable life cycle cost, and management. Under these four factors, the technical factor included four subfactors of equal weight: manufacturing/quality assurance, integrated logistics support, systems engineering, and testing. In addition to the four factors, the RFP also listed four general considerations of equal weight, all of which were less important than the four evaluation factors. The general considerations were pre-award survey, executive in-plant review, plant visits, and RFP terms and conditions. RFP sec. M.2.0. Offerors were also advised that two of the evaluation factors--technical (including the four subfactors) and management--would be assigned a color/adjectival rating, a proposal risk assessment, and a performance risk assessment.[3] They were also advised that the color/adjectival rating and the two risk ratings would receive equal consideration. RFP sec. M.6.0 The remaining two evaluation factors--schedule and cost/price--were not rated but were assigned a performance risk assessment. Since the RFP here envisioned the award of an ID/IQ contract, each LRU had an accompanying minimum and maximum order quantity, as well as a best estimated quantity (BEQ) for each of the four lots to be procured.