Avtron Manufacturing, Inc., B-280758, November 16, 1998

B-280758 Nov 16, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that awardee's aircraft generator test stand is not a nondevelopmental item (NDI). Is denied where the solicitation was issued under commercial item procedures seeking a "commercial NDI. Avtron primarily contends that ACL's offered test stand is not a nondevelopmental item (NDI). Was improperly evaluated as technically acceptable. The solicited test stand is to be used to field test multi-aircraft integrated drive generators (IDG). Which later was extended to January 30 by amendment 2. Minor modifications are allowed to the existing test stand. . . . 3.3.1. Major Modules or Assemblies: If the proposed [test stand] is assembled using commercial NDI major modules or assemblies. View Decision Matter of: Avtron Manufacturing, Inc. File: B-280758 Date: November 16, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Avtron Manufacturing, Inc. protests the award of a contract to AAI/ACL Technologies, Inc. (ACL) by the Department of the Air Force, San Antonio Air Logistics Center, under request for proposals (RFP) No. F41608-97-R-0168 for aircraft generator test stands. Avtron primarily contends that ACL's offered test stand is not a nondevelopmental item (NDI), as required by the RFP, and was improperly evaluated as technically acceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Air Force issued the RFP in draft form on September 30, 1997, for a replacement to the agency's existing MC-2 aircraft generator test stand, which had been designed to a military specification and supplied by ACL during the 1970's. The solicited test stand is to be used to field test multi-aircraft integrated drive generators (IDG), constant speed drives (CSD), and their associated generators (GEN). On December 30, the Air Force issued amendment 1, which converted the draft RFP into a final RFP, and established January 23, 1998 as the deadline for receipt of proposals, which later was extended to January 30 by amendment 2. Section 3 of the RFP's Performance Purchase Description (PPD) established minimum essential criteria for the proposed test stand to be considered acceptable. The PPD required the contractor to furnish a current and complete test stand of modular design and listed major modules or assemblies that offerors should include on the test stands they proposed. PPD at 2, 5. The PPD also provided: 3.3. NDI Commercial Item. The test stand shall be an already developed, state-of-the-art, market proven, commercial test stand with a proven reliability track record. Minor modifications are allowed to the existing test stand. . . . 3.3.1. Major Modules or Assemblies: If the proposed [test stand] is assembled using commercial NDI major modules or assemblies, which have not been previously merged and sold commercially as a test stand, the major modules or assembly that is proposed[/]used shall have a proven reliability track record of reliable and satisfactory service in similar test stands. Offeror shall provide evidence that these are proven and reliable commercially available assemblies. 3.4. Description. The proposed test stand shall be a commercial NDI test stand. . . . PPD at 4. The solicitation stated that proposals would be evaluated for compliance with PPD Sec. 3 and that offerors should provide evidence that their proposed units are reliable and commercially "'market proven' per 3.3 and 3.3.1." RFP at 22, 24; PPD at 9-10. The RFP required each offeror to submit a technical proposal, with performance specifications for the offeror's proposed test stand and commercial manuals, as well as present and past performance information, including a list of all contracts and subcontracts performed during the last 5 years for the same or similar work. RFP at 19-22. The RFP specified that award would be made to the acceptable offeror submitting the lowest evaluated offer based on the factors established in the RFP's performance-price tradeoff evaluation scheme, under which technical requirements were significantly more important than performance or price, with performance risk rating and price ranked second and co-equal. RFP at M-505, 22-24. The Air Force received five proposals in response to the RFP by the January 30 closing date, including proposals from Avtron and ACL. The agency evaluated the proposals, issued written requests for technical clarifications to all offerors on March 13 and, based on the satisfactory written responses from the offerors, determined by April 3 that all five proposals were technically acceptable. According to the Air Force, the technical clarification request to ACL involved "very minor" aspects of its proposal, and the offeror's response satisfied the agency and did not result in any revision to ACL's proposal. Agency Report, Tab 1 at 3.