Chant Engineering Co., Inc.--Request for Costs, B-274871.2,

B-274871.2 Aug 25, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced. AAI's price was $541. Chant's price was $549. Chant stated that it was prejudiced by the Air Force's actions in relaxing this requirement for the awardee because Chant had "allowed additional time and higher component costs in [its] pricing to meet IEEE-488 standards.". Its "pricing would have been lower. The November 4 agency report due date was extended and the Air Force's report on the protest was filed on November 18. The sole purpose of the RFP's IEEE-488 standard was to facilitate the transmission of data between independent components. There is no need for it to apply. Where the communication is "intra- component.". View Decision Matter of: Chant Engineering Co., Inc.--Request for Costs File: B-274871.2 Date: August 25, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Chant Engineering Co., Inc. requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging the award of a contract to AAI/ACL Technologies, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. F04699-96-R-A010, issued by the Department of the Air Force, McClellan Air Force Base, California, for two electrohydraulic servovalve test stations for testing F-16 aircraft. We recommend that the agency reimburse Chant its protest costs. The RFP, issued May 8, 1996, contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract for the design, manufacture, verification and installation of two electrohydraulic servovalve test stations. The RFP contained six pages of specifications which covered the test stations' general requirements, computer requirements, electronic console (EC) requirements, hydraulic test console requirements, installation requirements, and delivery, maintainability and training requirements. With respect to the EC, the RFP stated that: "a. All components of the EC shall be enclosed within the console cabinet. "b. All components of [the] EC shall use IEEE-488 standard interface." Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer. Of five proposals received, the Air Force found four technically acceptable, including the proposals submitted by Chant and AAI. AAI's price was $541,043; Chant's price was $549,925. The Air Force awarded the contract to AAI as the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror. Chant protested to our Office, alleging that AAI's proposed EC did not satisfy the RFP requirement that all components in the EC "shall use IEEE- 488 standard interface." In its initial protest submission, Chant stated that it was prejudiced by the Air Force's actions in relaxing this requirement for the awardee because Chant had "allowed additional time and higher component costs in [its] pricing to meet IEEE-488 standards." Chant further asserted that if it had been informed that it need not fully comply with the IEEE-488 specification, its "pricing would have been lower, resulting in the contract award." At the request of the agency, the November 4 agency report due date was extended and the Air Force's report on the protest was filed on November 18. In its report, the Air Force contended that Chant misinterpreted the requirement for the IEEE-488 interface and the awardee's proposal. Contrary to Chant's position that the RFP required that "all components" of the EC use the IEEE-488 standard interface, according to the agency, the sole purpose of the RFP's IEEE-488 standard was to facilitate the transmission of data between independent components, which otherwise would not be able to interface with one another. Therefore, the Air Force took the position that the requirement for the IEEE-488 interface only applies to inter-component communication; the IEEE-488 standard does not apply, and there is no need for it to apply, where the communication is "intra- component." The agency also stated that the awardee's test instrument combined what might otherwise be considered separate components into one component. These separate components were installed on one circuit board and, because these components were now "packaged" as one unit in AAI's proposal, the agency argued that the IEEE-488 standard was not applicable. The agency took the position that the EC proposed by AAI had only two components, the data acquisition and control unit and the power supply. However, the awardee's submissions specifically stated that only the power supply on AAI's EC meets the IEEE-488 standard interface requirement. Chant filed comments on November 29, again arguing that the specifications were clear and that AAI's EC did not meet the interface requirement. The protester also challenged the agency's argument that AAI's EC was made up of only two components, arguing that AAI's EC was composed of many different components from many different manufacturers.