Robotic Systems Technology, B-278195.2, January 7, 1998

B-278195.2 Jan 07, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Communications between offeror and contracting agency which were under- taken for the purpose of accounting for an apparent inconsistency in the offeror's cost summaries. The resolution of which was clear from a close reading of the cost proposal. Agency reasonably determined that protester's proposal was unacceptable where the technical proposal was deficient in a number of material areas including the failure to provide adequate information about the proposed test program and a crucial aspect of the item to be developed. Contracting agency is not obligated to conduct discussions with offeror which submitted unacceptable cost and technical proposals where the solicitation advised all offerors that the government intended to make award on the basis of initial proposals without holding discussions. View Decision Matter of: Robotic Systems Technology File: B-278195.2 Date: January 7, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Robotic Systems Technology (RST) protests the award of a contract to the Intellitec Division of Technical Products Group, Inc. (Intellitec), under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAM01-96-R-0079, issued by the Department of the Army for engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) of the Joint Services Lightweight Standoff Chemical Agent Detector (JSLSCAD). RST contends that the agency improperly engaged in discussions with Intellitec and otherwise improperly awarded the contract on the basis of initial proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The JSLSCAD is a passive, chemical agent detector capable of providing on- the-move 360 coverage from a variety of tactical and reconnaissance platforms at a distance of up to 5 kilometers. In addition to the 43- month EMD of the detector, the RFP included options for refurbishment of production qualification testing units (11 months), initial production of up to 200 units (30 months), and full scale production of up to 1,630 units (43 months). The RFP, issued on February 21, 1997, [1] advised offerors that, although the agency reserved the right to conduct discussions if necessary, the agency planned to make an award on the basis of initial proposals, without discussions, and that, therefore, offerors should submit initial proposals with their best terms. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 52.215-16, Alternate II (June 1997) (incorporated by reference in the RFP). The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the EMD portion and a fixed-price-incentive-fee contract for the options. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, represented the best value to the government. The determination of best value was to be based on an integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation of all areas and factors set forth in section M of the RFP. Proposals were evaluated on the basis of five areas with associated factors, listed in descending order of importance: (A) Technical, including (1) understanding the problem and (2) proposed solution; (B) Management, including (1) management plan, (2) personnel plan, (3) facilities, and (4) related experience; (C) Past Performance; (D) Cost/Price; (E) Socio-Economic Commitment. The technical and management areas received a combined merit rating, while past performance was rated in a narrative form with a risk assessment of high, moderate, or low. Cost/price was not numerically scored, but was evaluated for realism, reasonableness, and completeness. The socioeconomic area was evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable. Four offerors, including RST and Intellitec, submitted proposals by the April 24, 1997, closing date. After evaluating the proposals, the evaluators concluded that only Intellitec's proposal was acceptable as submitted. RST's proposal was evaluated as capable of being made acceptable, and the other two were evaluated as unacceptable. The results of the agency evaluation of Intellitec and RST were as follows: [2] Criteria Intellitec RST Technical (65) [deleted] [deleted] Understanding [20] [deleted] [deleted] Solution [45] [deleted] [deleted] Management (35) [deleted] [deleted] Mgmt. Plan [10] [deleted] [deleted] Personnel Plan [5] [deleted] [deleted] Facilities [10] [deleted] [deleted] Related Exper. [10] [deleted] [deleted] Bonus [deleted] [deleted] Total Merit Rating 83.5 71.75 Past Perform Risk Low Low to Moderate Socio-Economic Acceptable Unacceptable Cost/Price [3] Ceiling/Target $203,336,597/$235,044,483 $104,895,337/$112,909,392 During the evaluation, the agency requested clearer copies of certain charts that had been submitted with RST's proposal. It also contacted Intellitec with regard to its system of totaling its line and sub-line item costs. The agency viewed both communications with these offerors as clarifications.