Chant Engineering Company, Inc., B-279049; B-279049.2, April

Chant Engineering Company, Inc., B-279049; B-279049.2, April BNUMBER: B-279049; B-279049.2 DATE: April 30, 1998 TITLE: Chant Engineering Company, Inc., B-279049; B-279049.2, April 30, 1998 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:Chant Engineering Company, Inc. File: B-279049; B-279049.2 Date:April 30, 1998 Michael H. Payne, Esq., and Joseph A. Hackenbracht, Esq., Starfield & Payne, for the protester. Robert Martin, Esq., Simon, Turnbull & Martin, for Rexroth Corporation, an intervenor. Glenn Heisler, Esq., Panama Canal Commission, for the agency. C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Evaluation of protester's proposal was reasonable and consistent with solicitation providing for submission of preliminary design for hydraulic power systems where agency reasonably found the information submitted with the preliminary design insufficient to establish that design could meet the agency's technical requirements. 2. Allegation that awardee received an unfair competitive advantage under solicitation to design and manufacture hydraulic systems for lock gate, because it performed an earlier contract to design a prototype system, fails to state a valid basis of protest, in the absence of evidence showing preferential or unfair action by the government. DECISION Chant Engineering Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Rexroth Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. CNC-82163-LM-29, issued by the Panama Canal Commission for hydraulic power systems to operate miter gates. Chant asserts that the evaluation and rejection of its proposal were unreasonable. We deny the protests. On October 1, 1997, the Commission issued the RFP for a multiyear (8-year) fixed-price contract to design, fabricate, deliver, and supervise the installation of hydraulic power systems to replace the existing machinery for operating miter gates at locks in the canal. RFP sec. B, C.1.1. The RFP advised offerors that: the gates were nearly 65 feet in length and 7 feet in thickness, with heights ranging from 47 to 82 feet; the machinery had to open or close the gates within 2 minutes; and the canal's three locks included 80 gates, all requiring the new systems. RFP sec. C.1.3. The RFP advised potential offerors that the moving machinery consisted of a large gear, or crank gear, revolving in a horizontal plane, with a vertical pin at the periphery connected to a strut attached to the lock gate. The crank gear room, into which the hydraulic cylinder would be installed, is subject to flooding and is separated from a compensating gear room by a watertight bulkhead. The solicitation provided for award to the responsible offeror whose proposal the Commission determined "most advantageous (in other words represents the best value)," based upon listed evaluation criteria. RFP sec. M.1. These criteria included three "technical merits" subfactors, as follows: technical design and ease of installation; experience of the firm; and past performance. RFP sec. M.2.A The combined value of these subfactors was to be significantly more important than price. RFP sec. M.2.B. For evaluation under the technical design and ease of installation subfactor, section L of the RFP instructed offerors to furnish detailed technical information presenting the offeror's preliminary design for the hydraulic power system, in accordance with section C, the statement of work. According to the RFP, sec. L.1, this information was to include the following: a. Preliminary design for the hydraulic cylinder and hydraulic power unit. b. Preliminary design calculations for the forces exerted by the existing miter gate moving machine. c. A hydraulic control schematic for the main hydraulic power unit. d. A written description of the hydraulic system explaining how it will operate to meet the design parameters listed in the specifications. Particular emphasis should be placed on the pumps to be used and how they will be controlled. e. A written description and/or drawing showing ability to shop test the hydraulic cylinder under simulated field loading conditions. f. Electrical and control schematics with control operations sequence description. g. Electrical single-line, and elementary diagrams to indicate functions of equipment components. h. Step-by-step installation procedure. i. Ease of Installation: Offerors shall submit information as to how their proposed hydraulic powered system will be installed.