Applied Companies, B-279811, July 24, 1998

B-279811 Jul 24, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Which was identified as a proposal deficiency) lacked sufficient detail to satisfy agency's concerns about feasibility of approach and protester's understanding of requirements. Contracting agencies are not obligated to afford all-encompassing discussions that "spoon-feed" an offeror each item that must be addressed to improve a proposal. Agencies are only required to lead offerors into the areas of their proposals considered deficient and requiring amplification. These ECUs will replace current 18. Offerors were to submit detailed technical proposals for the design and development of the ECUs in accordance with the statement of work and purchase description specifications included in the RFP. /2/ Section L of the RFP advised offerors that the "technical proposal should demonstrate a clear understanding of all the features involved in solving the problems and meeting the technical requirements.". View Decision Matter of: Applied Companies File: B-279811 Date: July 24, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Applied Companies protests the exclusion of its two proposals from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAB07-97-R-E341, issued by the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM). Applied challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposals and contends that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the firm. We deny the protest. The RFP, as amended, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for 42 split-pack air conditioners (referred to as Environmental Control Units (ECU)), capable of producing a normal cooling capacity of 24,000 (24K) British Thermal Units per Hour (BTUH) and a normal heating capacity of 30,000 BTUH; these ECUs will replace current 18,000 (18K) BTUH units used in Patriot Missile shelters. /1/ RFP, Sec. B, at 4. Offerors were to submit detailed technical proposals for the design and development of the ECUs in accordance with the statement of work and purchase description specifications included in the RFP. /2/ Section L of the RFP advised offerors that the "technical proposal should demonstrate a clear understanding of all the features involved in solving the problems and meeting the technical requirements." RFP Sec. L, Para. 3.0, at 58. Each offeror was to describe how it would meet the performance requirements and schedule. The offeror was to submit "drawings, sketches, graphs, special analyses (e.g., model test results), calculation, design data, supporting narrative and/or other technical information outlining the proposed air conditioner design and performance characteristics." RFP Sec. L, Para. 3.1, at 59. Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to offer the government the best value, considering the following evaluation factors: technical; performance risk; and price (the technical factor was slightly more important than performance risk, which was slightly more important than price). RFP Sec. M-4, Para. 1.0, at 62. The technical factor included the following equally-weighted subfactors: 24K split-pack design; capabilities, plans, personnel, and facilities; test and evaluation; and contract master schedule. /3/ RFP Sec. M-4, Para. 2.0, at 62. Offerors were advised that each technical proposal would be "evaluated to determine the extent to which the technical requirements have been addressed and understood . . . [and that mere] statements of compliance or repetition of the technical requirements without an intelligent, complete discussion and analysis are unsatisfactory." RFP, amend. 0008, Sec. M-4, Para. 3.1(a), at 2. As to the 24K split-pack design subfactor of the technical factor, offerors were expressly notified that the agency's evaluation of the "feasibility of approach" would involve the agency's "level of confidence" in the proposal and the "completeness, feasibility, soundness of approach, potential risk, and amount and quality of supporting technical analysis" of the proposal. Id. Para. 3.1(b). Four proposals, including two from Applied, were received by the closing date of October 15, 1997. Each of Applied's proposals offered a different electrical power source technology--one proposed using the [deleted] generator, and the other proposal offered the [deleted] (MPI). Both of Applied's initial proposals were found to be susceptible to being made acceptable, and each was rated as having a moderate performance risk. One of the other two offerors' proposals was rated as technically acceptable, the other was considered to be susceptible to being made acceptable, and both were rated as having low performance risk. Applied's proposals (at $[deleted] for the [deleted] proposal, and $[deleted] for the MPI proposal) were lower-priced than the others (at $[deleted] and $[deleted], respectively).