Caterpillar Inc., B-280362; B-280362.2, September 23, 1998

Caterpillar Inc., B-280362; B-280362.2, September 23, 1998 BNUMBER: B-280362; B-280362.2 DATE: September 23, 1998 TITLE: Caterpillar Inc., B-280362; B-280362.2, September 23, 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:Caterpillar Inc. File: B-280362; B-280362.2 Date:September 23, 1998 William A. Roberts, III, Esq., Lee P. Curtis, Esq., Brian A. Darst, Esq., and Douglas S. Manya, Esq., Howrey & Simon, for the protester. C. Stanley Dees, Esq., Thomas C. Papson, Esq., and Richard P. Castiglia, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for Deere & Company, the intervenor. Susan M. Lewandowski, Esq., and Vera Meza, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the contracting agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's and awardee's competing proposals under certain technical evaluation factors is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable. DECISION Caterpillar Inc. protests an award to Deere & Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAE07-97-R-X062, issued by the Department of the Army, Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM), for an estimated quantity of 135 hydraulic excavators (HYEX) of three types.[1] We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on December 24, 1997, provided for the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a 5-year period. The acquisition sought commercially available equipment with only minor military modifications and using existing commercial technical manuals to the maximum practical extent. Section M.1, at page 90 of the RFP, stated that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the government under the stated source selection criteria. The RFP in section M.2 provided for a two-phased evaluation under which proposals would initially be evaluated under identified pass/fail requirements and proposals that passed those requirements would be evaluated under the following areas listed in descending order of importance: 1. Logistics 2. Technical 3. Price 4. Past Performance/Small Business Participation The RFP stated that the non-price factors are significantly more important than price, but reserved the right to award on the basis of price where two or more proposals are considered equal under the non-price areas, a superior proposal is unaffordable, or the advantages of higher-priced, higher-rated proposals are not considered to be worth the price premium. RFP sec. M.2(c), at 91. The evaluation areas were sub-divided into elements and factors, and their relative weights where stated in the RFP sec. M.3-M.6, at 91-94, as follows: Area 1: Logistics. Element 1: Commercial Logistics Support Factor 1: Support Factor 2: Warranty (Relative weight of above factors: "Support is by far the most important factor and is significantly more important than . . . Warranty.") Element 2: Manuals Element 3: Unique Tools (Relative weight of above elements: Element 1 is approximately as important as the other two elements combined, and is more important than Element 2, which is significantly more important than Element 3.) Area 2: Technical Element 1: Type I/II Bucket and Stick Force Element 2: Type III Bucket and Stick Force Element 3: Rock Drill Integration Element 4: Maintainability (Relative weight of above elements: Element 1 is significantly more important than Element 2, which is more important than Element 3, which is more important than Element 4.) Area 3: Price Area 4: Past Performance/Small Business Participation Element 1: Past Performance Element 2: Small Business Participation (Relative weight of above elements: Element 1 is significantly more important than Element 2.) Detailed proposal preparation instructions were provided that informed offerors that proposals were to be divided into a written proposal and an oral presentation. RFP sec. L.1, at 81. The instructions addressed the information for each of the stated evaluation areas, elements and factors that should be included in a proposal, and whether such information should be included in the written proposal or the oral presentation. RFP sec. L.2-L.7, at 81-87. The RFP at 78-79 included Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sec. 52.212-1 (June 1997), "Instruction to Offerors--Commercial Items", which states in pertinent part: (g) . . . The government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with [offerors].