Magnum Products, Inc.; Amida Industries, Inc., B-277917; B-

Magnum Products, Inc.; Amida Industries, Inc., B-277917; B- BNUMBER: B-277917; B-277917.2; B-277917.4 DATE: December 8, 1997 TITLE: Magnum Products, Inc.; Amida Industries, Inc., B-277917; B- 277917.2; B-277917.4, December 8, 1997 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. It has been approved for public release. Matter of:Magnum Products, Inc.; Amida Industries, Inc. File: B-277917; B-277917.2; B-277917.4 Date:December 8, 1997 William E. Hughes III, Esq., Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C., for Magnum Products, Inc., and Irvin V. Plowden, Jr., for Amida Industries, Inc., the protesters. Alexander J. Brittin, Esq., and Suzanne L. Karbarz, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, L.L.P., for T & J Manufacturing, Inc., an intervenor. Joseph Summerill, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Prison Industries, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency's determination that protester's revised proposal remained technically unacceptable after discussions, and that the proposal should be eliminated from further consideration for award, was proper where the agency reasonably concluded that the proposal would require major revision in order to become acceptable and the record shows that, in light of overall technical inferiority and higher price of its proposal, protester did not have a reasonable chance of receiving award. 2. Protest that awardee fails to comply with solicitation's experience requirements is denied where solicitation did not expressly prohibit offerors from relying on proposed subcontractors to meet the requirements and awardee's proposal shows that proposed major subcontractor has required experience. DECISION Magnum Products, Inc. and Amida Industries, Inc. protest the award of a contract to T & J Manufacturing, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1PI-R-0613-97, issued by the Department of Justice, Federal Prison Industries (FPI) for portable floodlight systems and related support services. Magnum protests that the agency's exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range was unreasonable; both Magnum and Amida challenge the award to T & J. We deny the protests. The RFP contemplated the award of a 5-year fixed-price requirements-type contract for the manufacturing and some assembling of portable floodlight systems, and related support services--the systems are to be delivered to FPI as kits to be assembled by inmates and supplied by FPI to other federal agencies. Section M of the RFP advised offerors of the following evaluation factors for award, listed in descending order of importance: technical quality (including subfactors for reliability and market acceptance, technical conformance and performance, certifications, maintenance and availability of replacement parts, safety features, and quality assurance, reliability, and maintainability programs); management (including previous performance experience and key personnel); and price. Alternate proposals, as separate submissions accompanying a fully compliant basic offer, were permitted. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror submitting the offer determined to be most advantageous to the government. Magnum, Amida, and T & J were among those offerors whose initial proposals were included in the competitive range for discussions. Each offeror was told of the agency's concerns regarding weaknesses/deficiencies in its proposal. After reviewing the revised proposals, the agency concluded that Magnum's proposal was technically unacceptable and excluded it from the competitive range. Amida's and T & J's proposals remained in the competitive range; further discussions were held with these firms on August 11, and best and final offers (BAFO) were submitted and evaluated. T & J's BAFO (at a unit price of $9,259) received a slightly higher technical/management evaluation score and offered a considerably lower price than Amida's BAFOs. Award was made to T & J on August 28. These protests followed. Magnum's protest Magnum protests the agency's decision to exclude its proposal from the competitive range, which was based primarily on a perceived deficiency regarding the proposed engine. As explained below, the record here shows that the agency reasonably excluded Magnum's proposal from the competitive range. The evaluation of proposals and resulting determination as to whether a particular offer is in the competitive range are matters within the discretion of the contracting agency since it is responsible for defining its needs and determining the best method of accommodating them. Network Sys. Solutions, Inc., B-249733, Dec. 14, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 410 at 4.