Exploration Products, B-279251.2; B-279251.3, June 1, 1998

Exploration Products, B-279251.2; B-279251.3, June 1, 1998 BNUMBER: B-279251.2; B-279251.3 DATE: June 1, 1998 TITLE: Exploration Products, B-279251.2; B-279251.3, June 1, 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:Exploration Products File: B-279251.2; B-279251.3 Date:June 1, 1998 Michael A. Hordell, Esq., and Laura L. Hoffman, Esq., Gadsby & Hannah, for the protester. Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., and P. Alan Luthy, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. John Van Schaik, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq. Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Selection of higher-priced proposal for small shelter/environmental control units was reasonable where testing of the protester's proposed equipment showed that the equipment did not meet a number of mandatory specifications. DECISION Exploration Products protests the award of a contract to Alaska Industrial Resources, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F08626-97-R-0107, issued by the Department of Air Force for a quantity of small shelter/environmental control units (SS/ECU). Exploration argues that its SS/ECU was not properly evaluated and that the Air Force should have communicated with the firm concerning certain failures of its equipment during government testing. We deny the protest because Exploration's SS/ECU was unacceptable and Exploration could not be awarded the contract due to its failure to meet certain mandatory specifications. The RFP stated that the objective of the contract is to procure a commercially-available, nondevelopmental shelter and ECU to replace the agency's current shelters for housing and work areas and that the primary focus is to acquire a system that is less of a burden to transport than the current SS/ECU. The RFP included a "System Performance Specification" which described the performance requirements and physical characteristics of the new SS/ECU. That document stated, at section 1.1, that "[t]he primary objective of the specification is to outline the performance and physical characteristic requirements for a new system that reduces the transportability (weight and volume) and cost burdens of the existing . . . shelter system." The acquisition was structured to permit the Air Force to make multiple awards for a limited number of units for testing and then to downselect to a single contractor to supply the units. The RFP stated that the government anticipated awarding up to three contracts, although it reserved the right to award fewer. The first four line items in the RFP were for four complete SS/ECUs (line item 0001), test samples of materials used in the shelters (0002), training for the SS/ECUs (0003), and maintenance and repair during testing (0004). All remaining line items were options to be exercised after the downselect decision. The RFP contemplated award to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government based on an assessment of the following four areas, listed in descending order of importance: 1.technical capability 2.logistics and readiness 3.cost/price 4.general considerations Under the technical capability area, the RFP listed the following three factors in descending order of importance: (1) key performance parameters, (2) manufacturing capability, and (3) system integration, technical tradeoffs, and other performance parameters. The RFP also indicated that proposals would be rated for proposal risk and performance risk under each of the factors and that past performance would be evaluated and assessed in each area at the factor level. Concerning the downselect decision, the RFP stated: Once the proposal review is completed, the Government intends to subject the contract award candidates to comprehensive tests and technical field evaluations within the parameters outlined in the System Performance Specification . . . . Knowledge gained from results of this evaluation/testing will be used by the source selection team to update and verify the initial evaluation of the 3 candidates/contractors. These updated evaluations will serve as the down select criteria for determining which of the three candidates/contractors proposed systems provides the "Best Value" to the Government. The Air Force received nine technical proposals. After evaluation, the agency conducted discussions and then determined that four proposals were acceptable and requested price proposals from those firms.