Micromass, Inc., B-278869, March 24, 1998

B-278869 Mar 24, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that evaluation methodology in solicitation for commercial thermal ionization mass spectrometer and related equipment unduly restricts competition and favors a particular manufacturer is denied where the record supports the agency's view that the methodology is necessary for the agency to assess the compatibility of items offered with existing laboratory equipment. The evaluation methodology in fact is aimed at enabling the agency to make such an assessment. Offerors must provide commercial literature or other information about the items being offered to show that they are commercial items as defined in FAR Sec. 2.101. /3/ The solicitation provides for award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal provides the best value to the government. View Decision Matter of: Micromass, Inc. File: B-278869 Date: March 24, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Micromass, Inc. protests the terms of solicitation No. DE-RP02-98-CH10908, issued by the Department of Energy, for a thermal ionization mass spectrometer (TIMS) and related laboratory equipment to be used by the New Brunswick Laboratory (NBL). /1/ The protester contends that certain evaluation factors in the solicitation unduly restrict competition and favor the manufacturer of the agency's existing TIMS. We deny the protest. On December 3, 1997, the agency issued a combined synopsis/solicitation under subpart 13.6 (June 1997) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) entitled, "Test Program for Certain Commercial Items" using simplified procedures set forth in FAR subpart 12.6 for the acquisition of supplies and services in amounts greater than the simplified acquisition threshold but not exceeding $5,000,000, including options. /2/ As amended, the solicitation requires delivery of a single commercial TIMS as well as related equipment, and offerors must provide commercial literature or other information about the items being offered to show that they are commercial items as defined in FAR Sec. 2.101. /3/ The solicitation provides for award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal provides the best value to the government, considering technical evaluation factors and price. As authorized by FAR Sec. 12.602, the synopsis/ solicitation provides for technical evaluation factors and, as amended, states their relative importance and calls for evaluation of these factors. Three technical factors, which are subdivided into subfactors, are listed in descending order of importance: instrument performance; compatibility with the agency's existing Finnigan MAT 261 TIMS; and past performance. /4/ Regarding compatibility with the existing Finnigan MAT 261 TIMS (factor 2), offers will be evaluated based on the following three subfactors: compatibility of filament types and associated hardware; software algorithms; and hardware compatibility and parts interchangeability. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness and the solicitation explains that, in selecting the best overall proposal, the agency will consider the probable price of doing business with the offeror, including the cost of training and adaptation to new procedures for instrumental analysis, peripheral equipment, and maintenance. Micromass protests that the solicitation is unduly restrictive and otherwise defective. Specifically, Micromass objects to the factor addressing compatibility with existing Finnigan MAT 261 TIMS because this evaluation methodology is "hardware restrictive" and favors Finnigan. Micromass further protests the use of price reasonableness as an evaluation factor on the grounds that it is a "subjectively weighted" criterion. Agency acquisition officials have broad discretion in selecting evaluation factors that should apply to an acquisition, and the relative importance of these factors. See FAR Sec. 15.605 (June 1997); see also U.S. Defense Sys., Inc., B-251544 et al., Mar. 30, 1993, 93-1 CPD Para. 279 at 5. Where a protester alleges that a solicitation provision is unduly restrictive, we will review the record to determine whether the provision is reasonably related to the agency's minimum needs. See Systems Application & Techs., Inc., B-270672, Apr. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para. 182 at 3. The evaluation of proposed equipment's compatibility with the agency's existing TIMS is unobjectionable. DOE explains that NBL requires a new TIMS that is as compatible as possible with its existing TIMS so that the laboratory can continue to achieve the highest possible levels of analytical accuracy and precision in nuclear safeguards measurements and in certifying isotopic composition for nuclear reference materials. According to the agency, NBL currently operates three Finnigan MAT TIMS, as well as a Finnigan MAT gas mass spectrometer that shares some common electronic boards, components, and vacuum apparatus.