ACS Systems & Engineering, Inc.

B-275439.3 Mar 31, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Where contracting agency evaluated best and final offers (BAFO) based upon changed requirements which were not communicated to offerors until after award. ACS contends that the proposed corrective action is unreasonable and unlawful. Each SAES unit will broadcast through a ship's intercom system from such sources as compact discs. The contract will run for 1 base year. Offerors were to supply up to 13 SAES units under the third line item. Offerors were to provide the price of doing so. Offerors were also to provide the price associated with extending this warranty for a total of 2 years. Offerors were advised that these line items were to be priced as options. It was determined not to be in the government's best interests to do so. [2] T-ASA's technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated the eight proposals it received and conducted discussions with all offerors. View Decision Matter of: ACS Systems & Engineering, Inc. File: B-275439.3 Date: March 31, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION ACS Systems & Engineering, Inc. protests the corrective action proposed by the Department of Defense's Television-Audio Support Activity (T-ASA) in connection with the firm's prior protest of the award of a contract to Peirce-Phelps, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. TASA12-95-R-0025, issued to obtain shipboard audio entertainment systems (SAES) on behalf of the Naval Media Center (NMC). ACS contends that the proposed corrective action is unreasonable and unlawful. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued July 20, 1995, anticipated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for SAES units consisting of state-of-the-art, commercial-off-the-shelf components. Each SAES unit will broadcast through a ship's intercom system from such sources as compact discs, audio cassettes, commercial FM signals, and the Armed Forces Satellite Transmitted Radio Service audio signal. The contract will run for 1 base year, with up to 4 option years. To satisfy the base year requirements, offerors were to supply up to 13 SAES units under the third line item. This line item also included two sub-line items, one for a 1-year SAES warranty and the other for a 2-year SAES warranty. In this regard, section C.3.10 of the RFP required that a manufacturer's standard warranty cover the equipment and services to be provided. If this warranty did not extend for a total of 1 year, offerors were to provide the price of doing so; offerors were also to provide the price associated with extending this warranty for a total of 2 years. In addition, the solicitation contained two separate line items for SAES spare parts kits--one for onboard use and one for depot-level use. Offerors were advised that these line items were to be priced as options. The remaining line items concerned such things as data, engineering services and support, technical manuals, and training. [1] Award would be made to the offeror submitting the "best overall proposal," considering merit and price. The solicitation included the standard clause, "Evaluation of Options," set forth at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 52.217-5, which informed offerors that offers would be evaluated by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement unless, in accordance with FAR Sec. 17.206(b), it was determined not to be in the government's best interests to do so. [2] T-ASA's technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated the eight proposals it received and conducted discussions with all offerors. The evaluation of discussion responses resulted in a competitive range of three: ACS's proposal; Peirce-Phelps's proposal for a basic system; and Peirce-Phelps's proposal for an enhanced system. Best and final offers (BAFO) were requested and submitted by March 11, 1996. However, on March 21, a firm whose proposal was excluded from the competitive range filed a protest in this Office, and the final evaluation of BAFOs was suspended until after our July decision denying the protest was issued. Techniarts Eng'g, B-271509, July 1, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 1. Given the passage of time since the solicitation's issuance, the TET postponed its final evaluation until after the NMC had reviewed each line item in light of the agency's current situation and requirements. NMC listed the line items in terms of their priority, placing primary emphasis on the production units and associated nonrecurring items. The three items lowest on the priority list were the 2-year warranty and the two types of spare parts kits. In view of the NMC's priorities, the TET's final evaluation did not consider the proposed prices of the 2-year warranty or spare parts kits. The TET concluded that Peirce-Phelps's proposal for an enhanced system represented the best value to the government and the contracting officer, acting as the source selection official, agreed.