Motorola, Inc., B-277862, December 3, 1997

B-277862 Dec 03, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protester's contention that the agency waived a material solicitation requirement for the awardee is dismissed as untimely where the contention is based on an ambiguous requirement in the statement of work that was apparent on the face of the solicitation documents and thus constituted a patent ambiguity that had to be protested prior to the closing date for submission of initial proposals. Protester was not prejudiced by an agency decision to ignore a requirement in the statement of work requiring compliance with a transmission duty cycle imposed by Federal Communications Commission regulations where the record shows that the awardee's offered equipment operated with or without the duty cycle. View Decision Matter of: Motorola, Inc. File: B-277862 Date: December 3, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Motorola, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Savi Technology pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAB07-97-R-V002, issued by the Department of the Army for Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) equipment. Motorola disputes the Army's interpretation of the solicitation in two areas, and in both, claims that the agency waived a material RFP requirement for Savi. Motorola also argues that the Army conducted an unreasonable evaluation of Savi's price proposal. We dismiss the protest in part, and deny it in part. BACKGROUND The Army issued the RFP on April 15, 1997, to procure RFID equipment, software, and support services for the Department of Defense and the U.S. Coast Guard. The RFID equipment at issue here uses radio frequency (RF) as the identification medium in shipping and receiving material, including tracking and monitoring assets within large military warehouse environments, open-air storage areas, office and laboratory environments, combat areas, and military transportation facilities. Specifically, the RFP sought to purchase an integrated system of personal computers, transponders, interrogators and software to permit electronic identification of assets. [1] The RFP contained a 36-month ordering period for hardware, software, and documentation, and a 60-month ordering period for training and technical engineering services. The RFP anticipated award of a fixed-price, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract to the offeror whose proposal presented the best value to the government based on consideration of the evaluation factors of technical, cost, management, and past performance. The RFP set forth the relative weight of these factors as follows: the technical factor was significantly more important than any other factor; the past performance and cost factors were approximately equal, and each was more important than the management factor; and the technical, past performance, and management factors combined were significantly more important than cost. [2] RFP, amend. No. 0002, part E-2, para. 3.1. Under the evaluation scheme, each proposal was to receive an adjectival and color rating under the technical, management, and past performance evaluation factors; no score was to be assigned for the cost factor. [3] By the closing date set forth in the RFP, the Army received proposals from two offerors, Motorola and Savi. The Army scheduled oral presentations, conducted discussions, and permitted each offeror an opportunity to demonstrate its proposed system. Although the results of the demonstration were not separately scored, the RFP advised offerors that information from the demonstration could be reflected in the evaluations. RFP, amend. No. 0002, part E-1, para. 16.2.e. During the demonstration, Motorola experienced numerous significant problems with its equipment; Savi's equipment experienced few problems during the demonstration. Upon receipt of best and final offers (BAFO) on July 30, 1997, the Army's source selection evaluation board (SSEB) concluded its review. The ratings under each of the evaluation factors, and the total evaluated prices, are shown below: OFFEROR TECHNICAL PRICE/COST PAST PERFORM. MGMT. SAVI Blue $100 million Blue Blue MOTOROLA Yellow [deleted] Blue Blue On August 6, after reviewing the SSEB report and other evaluation materials, the Source Selection Authority selected Savi for award, which was made on August 8. After receiving a debriefing on August 14, Motorola filed its protest with our Office on August 25. DISCUSSION Motorola raises three challenges to this procurement. First, it claims it was misled by the RFP into proposing a graphical user interface (GUI) for the hand-held interrogators (HHI) required by this solicitation.