International Code Services, Inc., B-276457, June 16, 1997

B-276457 Jun 16, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that multiple awards should be made because this would result in a lower price to the government is denied where the solicitation indicated that a single award in the aggregate would be made. Will & Emery. ICS asserts that the Navy should have made multiple awards under the RFP with ICS receiving an award for that portion of the requirement on which its price was low. Offers were to include fabrication and delivery of the trainers. Price factors were equally important. The logistics factor was more important than the past performance factor. Were significantly more important than price. The solicitation provided that as competing proposals were determined to be substantially equal in technical merit. View Decision Matter of: International Code Services, Inc. File: B-276457 Date: June 16, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION International Code Services, Inc. (ICS) protests the award of a contract to Symtron Systems, Inc., by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center, Training Systems Division, Orlando, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N61339-97-R-0006 for fire fighting training systems. ICS asserts that the Navy should have made multiple awards under the RFP with ICS receiving an award for that portion of the requirement on which its price was low. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on November 19, 1996, contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract for commercially available, propane-fueled, fire fighting training systems for use at various Army installations in the following configurations: 2-floor and 3-floor modular/fixed structural trainers, mobile structural trainers, and mobile aircraft rescue/fire fighting trainers. These computer-controlled systems safely replicate flames, heat, and reduced visibility (using non-toxic smoke) during fire fighting training exercises. Offers were to include fabrication and delivery of the trainers, as well as set-up, testing, training, documentation, and warranty coverage. The RFP's price schedule consisted of three different lots. Lot I, the base quantity, requested line item prices for a 3-floor modular/fixed structural trainer for Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey; a 2-floor modular/fixed structural trainer for Ft. Belvoir, Virginia; a 2-floor modular/fixed structural trainer for Ft. Lewis, Washington; a mobile structural trainer for Ft. Rucker, Alabama; a mobile aircraft trainer for Ft. Belvoir; and a mobile aircraft trainer for Ft. Rucker. Lot II consisted of optional line items for extended warranties for the Lot I trainers by site, i.e., extended warranties for Ft. Monmouth, Ft. Belvoir, Ft. Lewis, and Ft. Rucker. Lot III consisted of options for four 3-floor modular/fixed structural trainers, four 2-floor modular/fixed structural trainers, nine mobile aircraft trainers, and 12 mobile structural trainers. Besides requesting unit and extended prices for the different line items, the price schedule requested that offerors supply total prices by lot. The RFP listed the following evaluation factors: 1. System Operations 2. System Performance 3. Logistics 4. Past performance--assessed for risk 5. Price (affordability) The system operations, system performance, and price factors were equally important; the logistics factor was more important than the past performance factor, but less important than the system operations factor. Although all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, were significantly more important than price, the solicitation provided that as competing proposals were determined to be substantially equal in technical merit, past performance and total evaluated price could become paramount. The RFP required offerors to propose prices for all requirements and stated that prices were to be evaluated for the basic system requirements (Lot I) and the two option quantities (Lot II and Lot III) by adding the total for all priced line items in Lots I and II together with the estimated quantities priced in Lot III. Offerors were also required to complete an "Affordability Pricing Worksheet," which essentially replicated the price schedule, but which also asked for a total proposed price based on the total Lot I, Lot II, and Lot III prices. This total proposed price was to be evaluated for completeness and balance and the total evaluated price was to be assessed for reasonableness. The solicitation stated that award would be made to the offeror whose acceptable proposal was most advantageous to the government, technical merit, past performance, and evaluated price considered. The RFP included the clause found at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 52.212-1, Instructions To Offerors--Commercial Items (OCT 1995), which provides, in relevant part: "(h) Multiple awards. The Government may accept any item or group of items of an offer, unless the offeror qualifies the offer by specific limitations.