Electro-Voice, Inc., B-278319; B-278319.2, January 15, 1998

Electro-Voice, Inc., B-278319; B-278319.2, January 15, 1998 BNUMBER: B-278319; B-278319.2 DATE: January 15, 1998 TITLE: Electro-Voice, Inc., B-278319; B-278319.2, January 15, 1998 ********************************************************************** Matter of:Electro-Voice, Inc. File: B-278319; B-278319.2 Date:January 15, 1998 Larry King for the protester. James J. McCullough, Esq., Anne B. Perry, Esq., Nancy R. Wagner, Esq., and Joel R. Feidelman, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for Specialty Plastic Products of PA, Inc., the intervenor. Vera Meza, Esq., and Richard R. Mobley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of this decision. DIGEST 1. Restriction on protests of orders placed under delivery order contracts contained in 10 U.S.C. sec. 2304c(d) (1994) does not apply to protests of downselections implemented by the placement of a delivery order under a multiple award delivery order contract, resulting in the elimination of one of the contractors from consideration for future delivery orders. 2. Agency's testing and evaluation of helmet communications headsets for hearing protection is reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation where the agency conducted its tests in accordance with the testing standards prescribed in the solicitation. 3. Agency's failure to reasonably evaluate one performance characteristic in downselecting among two contractors to supply helmets is not prejudicial to the protester, which proposed a significantly higher price, where the record shows that the selected contractor's helmet was, in fact, superior with regard to this performance characteristic, such that the protester's overall marginal technical advantage was not affected by this unreasonable element of the evaluation. 4. Agency's selection of a similar rated, but significantly lower priced, contractor is reasonable where the best value selection plan considered technical considerations and price of equal importance. DECISION Electro-Voice, Inc. protests the selection of Specialty Plastic Products of PA, Inc. by the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Command, Natick, Massachusetts, to proceed with the production of Advanced Combat Vehicle Crewman (ACVC) helmets with communications systems under a delivery order contract awarded pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAK60-97-R-9617. We deny the protests. These protests concern the downselection (i.e., the selection of one of multiple contractors for continued performance) of Specialty Plastic instead of Electro-Voice, both of which firms had received awards of indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts for the helmets. The initial line item that was ordered under the contracts was the production and delivery of four product demonstration models (PDM) for testing in the downselection process. The RFP indicated that the downselection would be on a best value basis considering certain specified factors, including cost and technical performance of the PDM helmets and communications headsets. The technical requirements for the helmets and headsets were stated in Purchase Description A3261199 dated March 14, 1997, which was incorporated into the RFP.[1] Of particular relevance to this protest is the requirement for hearing protection, i.e., physical ear attenuation, at section 3.5.2 of the purchase description, which states: The headset shall attenuate vehicle noise to a maximum of 85 dBA[2] from 63 to 8000 Hz when tested [in accordance with (IAW) section] 4.6.5.2. Section 4.6.5.2 stated the following testing methodology: The physical ear attenuation shall be tested IAW ANSI/ASA S12.42-1995 for 1/3 octave bands from 63 Hz to [8000 Hz]. . . . The production test sound field shall be the M1 Abrams at 110 dBA. Test to show compliance with [section] 3.5.2. The referenced ANSI/ASA standard is published by the Acoustical Society of America and prescribes testing methodologies for determining hearing protection. Under the PDM delivery orders, Electro-Voice and Specialty Plastic were also to provide verification test data demonstrating the performance characteristics of their PDMs. Section M-4.1(d) of the RFP stated that the agency would test and evaluate PDMs using contractor supplied information and data. The data submitted by both contractors evidenced that their respective PDMs satisfied the 85 dBA requirement for physical ear attenuation. The agency conducted its own tests to verify the reliability of the data submitted by the contractors.