Matter of: Spectrum Controls Systems, Inc.

B-275505 Feb 27, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Allegation that agency improperly evaluated awardee's proposal is denied where record establishes that the agency reasonably determined that awardee's proposal complied with the solicitation specifications. 200-point technical/management evaluation scheme and provided that technical factors were more important than price in the award selection. Two of which are relevant to this protest. Johnson's proposal was evaluated as technically acceptable and Spectrum's proposal was evaluated as technically unacceptable but susceptible of being made acceptable. Both proposals were included in the competitive range. Remained noncompliant with the RFP's specifications. [1] While Spectrum's proposal was evaluated as technically unacceptable. View Decision Matter of: Spectrum Controls Systems, Inc. File: B-275505 Date: February 27, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Spectrum Control Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Johnson Controls, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA 27-96-R-0063, issued by the Department of the Army, for the expansion of the Energy Monitoring and Control System (EMCS) at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals for installing heating ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) control and monitoring equipment in 14 existing buildings, interfacing and connecting the new equipment to the existing EMCS system, and furnishing all necessary hardware and software to accomplish the expansion. The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price requirements contract for a base requirement with several options. The solicitation set forth a 9,200-point technical/management evaluation scheme and provided that technical factors were more important than price in the award selection. The RFP stated that the agency would consider only the base requirement in evaluating price. The agency issued four amendments to the solicitation, two of which are relevant to this protest. Amendment No. 1 added drawings ME1 and ME3, and amendment No. 3 changed note 5 of drawing ME1 to the following: "The contractor shall provide operator interface from the central station computer in one of three methods, as follows. A. Method One, the contractor shall provide interface between the existing Staefa Controls central station computer in Building 30022 and existing Staefa Controls instrumentation points in Building 10262 and 10266. B. Method Two, the contractor shall provide interface between the existing Johnson Controls central station computer in Building 30022 and existing Staefa Controls instrumentation points in Building 10262 and 10266. C. Method Three, the contractor shall provide interface between the new central station computer in Building 30022 and existing Staefa Controls instrumentation points in Building 10262 and 10266." The agency received proposals from Johnson and Spectrum by the closing date for receipt of proposals. Johnson's proposal was evaluated as technically acceptable and Spectrum's proposal was evaluated as technically unacceptable but susceptible of being made acceptable, and both proposals were included in the competitive range. The agency conducted written discussions with both offerors and requested revised proposals. The agency concluded that numerous technical features of Spectrum's proposal, such as the power line conditioner, the remote terminal unit and the resident application software, remained noncompliant with the RFP's specifications. [1] While Spectrum's proposal was evaluated as technically unacceptable, the agency did a comparative analysis of the two proposals and made award to Johnson on the basis that its proposal represented the best overall value to the government. TECHNICAL EVALUATION Spectrum challenges the evaluation of Johnson's proposal and the agency's decision to make award to that company on the grounds that Johnson's proposal did not meet the RFP's specifications. Specifically, Spectrum contends that because Johnson proposed to replace two of the Staefa Controls field control panels located in building 10262, the proposal did not comply with note No. 3 of drawing No. ME1 which states that: "[t]he contractor shall integrate all expansion hardware and software with the existing system, without requiring changes to the existing system." [Emphasis added.] The agency explains that the "existing system" that it did not want changed consists of the Staefa Controls instrumentation points; it does not include the field control panels at issue. According to the agency, numerous field control instrumentation points are attached to various pieces of HVAC equipment to control operation and to monitor usage. These field control instrumentation points cannot directly interface with the computer; they must send their information to the computer through the field control panels.