Input/Output Technology, Inc., B-280585; B-280585.2, October

Input/Output Technology, Inc., B-280585; B-280585.2, October BNUMBER: B-280585; B-280585.2 DATE: October 21, 1998 TITLE: Input/Output Technology, Inc., B-280585; B-280585.2, October 21, 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:Input/Output Technology, Inc. File:B-280585; B-280585.2 Date:October 21, 1998 Richard D. Lieberman, Esq., and James S. DelSordo, Esq., Kinosky, Phillips & Lieberman, for the protester. William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., J. Scott Hommer, Esq., and Wm. Craig Dubishar, Esq., Venable, Baetjer and Howard, for Honeywell, Inc., an intervenor. Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., and Robert A. Russo, Esq., Army Materiel Command, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that price evaluation was improperly based on methodology set out in unnumbered solicitation pages and was inconsistent with approach agency allegedly conveyed orally to protester, is denied where evaluation was consistent with approach set forth in the solicitation, and record shows protester was on notice of agency's intended evaluation approach; although pages setting forth the approach were unnumbered and not marked with solicitation number and were, apparently for that reason, overlooked by protester, the pages were included in copy of solicitation downloaded from the Internet and printed by protester. DECISION Input/Output Technology, Inc. protests the award of a contract by the Army Materiel Command, Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM), to Honeywell, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAB07-98-R-B258, for the repair and retrofit of AN/APN-209 Line Replaceable Units (LRU). Input/Output raises several challenges to the selection process, including the evaluation of price and technical proposals. We deny the protest. The solicitation provided for award of a 5-year indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract to repair and retrofit two receiver/transmitter LRUs in the AN/APN-209 Radar Altimeter Set, which is used to measure altitude in fixed-wing and rotary aircraft. Award was to be made "based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government" under the following three evaluation factors: (1) technical, including subfactors for repair/retrofit and test plans, key personnel, quality assurance plan, warranty, schedule, and small business/small disadvantaged business utilization plan; (2) performance risk, as indicated by the offeror's record of past performance; and (3) price. RFP sec. M-4. The technical factor was "slightly more important" than either performance risk or price; performance risk and price were of equal importance and combined were more important than the technical factor. Id. The Army received proposals from Input/Output and Honeywell--the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for the AN/APN-209--by the closing time; both were included in the competitive range. At the conclusion of written and oral discussions, the agency requested final proposal revisions. Based on the final evaluation, the contracting officer determined that Honeywell had submitted the best overall proposal. Both Honeywell's and Input/Output's proposals were evaluated as outstanding under the technical factor--both proposals received outstanding ratings under the two most important technical subfactors (repair/retrofit and test plans and key personnel), and Honeywell's also received an outstanding rating for its small business/small disadvantaged business utilization plan. Likewise, both proposals were evaluated as offering low performance risk. However, the price of Honeywell's proposal ($[DELETED] with first article test (FAT) and $[DELETED] without FAT) was significantly lower than the price of Input/Output's ($[DELETED] with FAT and $[DELETED] without FAT). Award was made to Honeywell based on price. PRICE EVALUATION The solicitation requested unit prices for each year of the contract for four stepladder quantities (1 to 50, 51 to 100, 101 to 200, and 201 to 300 units) of various repair, test and retrofit processes. Input/Output argues that CECOM misled it during negotiations as to the agency's intended approach to evaluating stepladder prices. The solicitation included pages consecutively numbered 1 through 56, several attachments, and 4 pages that were unnumbered and not identified with the solicitation number.