Imaging Systems Technology, B-278112, December 10, 1997

B-278112 Dec 10, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that proposal was improperly downgraded based on results of equipment demonstration is denied where solicitation stated that demonstration was part of initial proposal and required offerors to show compliance with statement of work requirements at the demonstration. Award was to be made on a best value basis. Offerors were required to conduct a technical demonstration of their system. Three offers were received (only IST's and GM Cope's are relevant here). IST's unsatisfactory/high risk rating for the technical factor was based largely on IST's failure to show compliance with all technical requirements during the demonstration. The remote control unit (RCU) demonstrated was found to be too small. View Decision Matter of: Imaging Systems Technology File: B-278112 Date: December 10, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Imaging Systems Technology (IST) protests the award of a contract to The GM Cope-LAU Joint Venture under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00019-97- R-0043, issued by the Department of the Navy for 38 Video Mapper Replacement Units, 250 Remote Control Units, system software, 4 Installation Checkout Kits, training, and associated data. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price contract under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, and contained a statement of work (SOW) which outlined the government's requirements. Award was to be made on a best value basis, considering price and the following technical factors: (1) technical aspects of the item offered to meet the government's requirements, including warranty (most important factor); (2) ability to meet the delivery schedule; and (3) past performance. In addition to a written description of the manufacturer's product specifications, ability to meet the delivery schedule and the data items proposed and how they meet the government's requirements, offerors were required to conduct a technical demonstration of their system, during which compliance with all requirements had to be demonstrated. Three offers were received (only IST's and GM Cope's are relevant here). Following the demonstrations, the agency rated IST's proposal as follows: unsatisfactory/high risk (technical), marginal/medium risk (delivery), and satisfactory/low risk (past performance). IST's unsatisfactory/high risk rating for the technical factor was based largely on IST's failure to show compliance with all technical requirements during the demonstration. Specifically, the remote control unit (RCU) demonstrated was found to be too small, and one map failure caused five maps to fail. In contrast, GM Cope's proposal was rated highly satisfactory/low risk under all factors. The agency concluded that GM Cope's proposal's technical superiority and offered 2-year hardware/software warranty (compared to IST's 2-year hardware and 1-year software warranty) offset IST's significant cost advantage and made award to GM Cope without discussions. IST argues that its proposed equipment in fact meets all technical requirements, and that it thus should have received the award based on its low price. As for its failure to verify compliance during the demonstration, IST asserts that (1) it demonstrated an RCU smaller than required because no dimensions for the RCU were included in the RFP--its RCU in fact can be delivered in any configuration; and (2) there was not a map failure at its demonstration, since the failure was caused by operator error--due to the agency's failure to provide a necessary radar frequency- -not a system failure. This argument is without merit. As indicated above, the RFP required each offeror to provide, as "part of the offeror's initial proposal," a technical demonstration which "shall demonstrate that the offeror's products meet all technical considerations detailed in the [SOW]." The SOW stated that "[t]he [RCU] shall be form/fit and shall use the existing locations of the FA-8970 remote map selector switches," and that "[a]ny map failure shall not cause more than one map channel to fail." As indicated above, IST's RCU was found noncompliant with the form/fit requirement based on improper (too small) dimensions, and during the demonstration one map failure caused five maps to fail. IST's assertion, essentially, that the demonstration did not show that its equipment fails to satisfy the SOW requirements ignores the plain language of the RFP-- offerors were to affirmatively demonstrate compliance with the requirements at the demonstration. Thus, while IST claims that it can, in fact, furnish a compliant RCU, and that there was no map failure--that any "failure" was due to operator error--the fact remains that IST was unable to demonstrate compliance with these two SOW requirements at the demonstration.