Liebert Federal Systems, Inc.

B-274823 Jan 08, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency waived mandatory technical requirements (regarding commercial availability and Underwriters Laboratory (UL) certification of products) for awardee is denied where cited specifications were included in solicitation's performance requirements and were not preconditions for award and agency reasonably considered information in awardee's proposal regarding firm's ability to meet commercial availability and UL certification requirements prior to performance of the contract in determining awardee's low proposal risk. Agency was not required to exclude awardee from competition. Contrary to protester's contention that awardee's substantial change in salvage value pricing was the result of awardee's improper use of protester's proposal information. View Decision Matter of: Libert Federal Systems, Inc File: B-274823 Date: January 8, 1997 * Redacted Decision Protest that agency waived mandatory technical requirements (regarding commercial availability and Underwriters Laboratory (UL) certification of products) for awardee is denied where cited specifications were included in solicitation's performance requirements and were not preconditions for award and agency reasonably considered information in awardee's proposal regarding firm's ability to meet commercial availability and UL certification requirements prior to performance of the contract in determining awardee's low proposal risk. Agency was not required to exclude awardee from competition, despite that firm's improper receipt (in violation of protective order issued in prior protest) of certain of protester's proposed prices where agency reasonably "leveled the playing field" for the competition by releasing to all offerors, without objection, similar information regarding the awardee's proposal, as well as certain model contract pricing information for all offerors, and, contrary to protester's contention that awardee's substantial change in salvage value pricing was the result of awardee's improper use of protester's proposal information, the record does not support protester's allegations; rather, the record reasonably shows that awardee's changed pricing on recompetition was the result of its own business initiative and judgment. Protest that awardee's prices were materially unbalanced is denied where: there is no evidence that the offer contains enhanced prices; higher prices in early base years and lower prices in last base year and option years of contract reasonably reflect awardee's offered volume discount, and were calculated and evaluated against agency's stated revised anticipated quantity estimates (which estimates were not timely protested); and although awardee's price becomes low in the third base year of the contract (which included two 1-year option periods), agency reasonably expects to exercise all options and protester fails to show that reasonable doubt exists that award to the firm will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the government. Protest of agency's evaluation of cost proposals is denied where the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the solicitation's stated evaluation provisions and post-award protest of those provisions (and estimated quantities included in those provisions) is untimely in light of the information given to protester prior to recompetition--if protester had reason to believe the evaluation should have been conducted other than in the manner specifically set out in the amended solicitation, the firm should have protested prior to submitting its proposal on the recompetition. Attorneys DECISION Liebert Federal Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Exide Electronics Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. F04606-94-R- 0002, issued by the Department of the Air Force, Sacramento Air Logistics Center, for three phase 125-1000 kVA Static Uninterruptible Power Supplies (SUPS)/SUPS Systems and SUPS-related services (including support services for installation, ancillary equipment, warranty, start-up, emergency/preventative maintenance, training, and data) in the United States and overseas. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the technical and cost proposals, and the agency's determination that Exide's proposal offered the lowest cost to the government. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on May 18, 1994, contemplated the award of a requirements contract with a 3-year base ordering period and two 1-year options. The RFP provided quantity estimates for proposal preparation and evaluation purposes. Most of the RFP contract line item numbers (CLIN) called for fixed prices, while others were cost reimbursable or time-and-material items; certain prices for particular site requirements (e.g., CLIN 24-- installation and CLIN 25--ancillary equipment) were to be negotiated after award.