Chant Engineering Co. Inc., B-280250, August 7, 1998

B-280250 Aug 07, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Provided that "[t]his specification is for the express purpose of soliciting technical proposals and cost estimates for a nozzle test stand from an established contractor having experience in the design and manufacture of aircraft fuel components test stands.". The test stands will be used to test the performance characteristics of aircraft fuel nozzles and other fuel equipment components in accordance with the equipment's associated technical manuals. Were significantly more important than cost or price. I.e. 1500 hours of MTBF will be given a higher rating than those with [a] rating of 500. The methodology used in determining the MTBF and the Life Expectancy of the proposed fuel nozzle test life will be evaluated. View Decision Matter of: Chant Engineering Co. Inc. File: B-280250 Date: August 7, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Chant Engineering Co. Inc. protests the evaluation of its proposal and the award of a contract to Bauer Howden, Inc. by the United States Marine Corps under request for proposals (RFP) No. M00146-98-R-0003 for two aircraft fuel nozzle test stands. We deny the protest. The RFP's specification for the fuel nozzle test stand set out minimum requirements for design, manufacture, and delivery, and provided that "[t]his specification is for the express purpose of soliciting technical proposals and cost estimates for a nozzle test stand from an established contractor having experience in the design and manufacture of aircraft fuel components test stands." RFP Sec. C, Para. 1.1. The test stands will be used to test the performance characteristics of aircraft fuel nozzles and other fuel equipment components in accordance with the equipment's associated technical manuals. RFP Sec. C, Para. 3.2, 3.3.1.1. The required major components of the test stand include a test stand enclosure and test sink, a fuel supply and control system, an operator console and instrumentation, and a patternator. /1/ RFP Sec. C, Para. 3.2.1. The RFP established minimum standards of reliability for the test stand by requiring that the item be designed for a mean time between failures (MTBF) of at least 500 hours and for a useful life (life expectancy) of 10 years (approximately 2,000 hours per year). RFP Sec. C, Para. 3.3.3. The RFP also required that an offeror furnish documentation that substantiates that its test stand meets the reliability requirements of section C, paragraph 3.3.3. RFP Sec. C, Para. 4.1.1.2. According to the RFP, "[t]hese requirements can be validated by the contractor by a theoretical study or by citing comparability to similar systems presently in use." Id. Reliability validation had to be provided for both MTBF and useful life. Id. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract based on the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: 1. TECHNICAL FACTORS A. Reliability 1. [MTBF], which includes evaluation of the method used to determine the MTBF for the proposed test stand. 2. Life Expectancy, which includes evaluation of the method used to determine the Life Expectancy of the proposed test stand. B. Warranty C. Training 2. PRICE 3. PAST PERFORMANCE RFP Sec. M, at 43. The RFP specified that the technical factors and past performance, when combined, were significantly more important than cost or price. Id. For the past performance factor, the RFP instructed offerors to "describe [their] experience with producing the same or similar items within the last three (3) years." RFP Sec. L, at 39. On the same page, the RFP also instructed offerors how MTBF and life expectancy would be evaluated under the reliability factor: Preference shall be given to those with the higher MTBF, i.e. 1500 hours of MTBF will be given a higher rating than those with [a] rating of 500, and the test stands with life expectancy of 15 years shall be given a higher rating than those with a life expectancy of 10 years. [An] MTBF of less than 500 hours shall be considered unsatisfactory. In addition, the methodology used in determining the MTBF and the Life Expectancy of the proposed fuel nozzle test life will be evaluated. Proven examples that can be validated shall receive a higher rating than theoretical studies (see section C, paragraph 3.3.3 and 4.1.1.2). Three offerors, including Chant and Bauer, submitted proposals in response to the RFP. The agency's evaluators assigned Bauer the maximum score for past performance because the firm demonstrated that it had manufactured multiple test stands of the type being procured. Chant's proposal received the minimum acceptable score for past performance because, while Chant had designed and installed many types of test stands, Chant provided no evidence that it had designed a nozzle test stand with a patternator, the type of stand solicited here.