Precision Echo, Inc., B-276740; B-276740.2, July 23, 1997

Precision Echo, Inc., B-276740; B-276740.2, July 23, 1997 BNUMBER: B-276740; B-276740.2 DATE: July 23, 1997 TITLE: Precision Echo, Inc., B-276740; B-276740.2, July 23, 1997 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:Precision Echo, Inc. File: B-276740; B-276740.2 Date:July 23, 1997 Donald G. Featherstun, Esq., and Mitchell H. Segal, Esq., Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, for the protester. Ronald K. Henry, Esq., Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, for TEAC America, Inc., an intervenor. Daniel A. Laguaite, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation and source selection is denied where agency reasonably determined that awardee's aircraft video fatigue data recorder demonstrated more user-friendly interface and consequently higher reliability; since awardee's proposal therefore was superior to protester's under the most important evaluation criteria, agency reasonably concluded that, despite its higher price, it represented better value than protester's. DECISION Precision Echo, Inc. protests the award of a contract to TEAC America, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00163-96-R-0336, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, for HI-8mm video fatigue data recorders (VFDR) for the Harrier AV-8B aircraft.[1] Precision Echo challenges the acceptability of TEAC's offer and the evaluation generally. We deny the protest. The solicitation provided for award of a fixed-price contract for a base quantity of 209 VFDRs (with an option for an additional 20 units) to the responsible offeror whose offer "provides the best value to the Government" under the following three criteria (listed in descending order of importance): (1) statement of work (SOW), comprised of six subcriteria, including performance requirements, mean-time-between-failure (MTBF), mean-time-to-repair (MTTR), environmental survivability, safety assessment, and supportability; (2) past performance; and (3) price. Past performance was "slightly less important" than SOW, while price was "the least important." Four proposals from three offerors were received by the closing time on October 1, 1996. TEAC submitted two proposals--one for entirely new VFDRs, and a "buy-back" proposal which offered a price reduction based upon the return and reuse of certain components from the agency's current VFDRs. All proposals were included in the competitive range. Following discussions with offerors, the Navy requested best and final offers (BAFO). Based upon its evaluation of BAFOs, the agency determined that TEAC's buy-back proposal provided the best value to the government. The evaluation results were as follows: TEAC (New/Buy-back) Precision Echo SOW Performance Satisfactory Plus Satisfactory Plus MTBF Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory MTTR Highly Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory Survivability Satisfactory Satisfactory Safety Satisfactory Satisfactory Supportability Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory Past Performance Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory Risk Low Moderate OVERALL NON-PRICE Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory PRICE $[DELETED](New)/ $1,143,855 (Buy-back) $[DELETED] On December 20, the Navy made award to TEAC. REUSE OF MATERIAL TEAC offered a credit or price reduction of $[DELETED] per new VFDR when an existing VFDR was returned in working order within 60 days of receipt of the new replacement unit. Precision Echo maintains that this constituted the use of government-furnished material (GFM), and that this arrangement resulted in an unfair competitive advantage for TEAC because the solicitation did not advise offerors that GFM would be available, as required by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sec. 45.303-2.