Beckman Coulter, B-281030; B-281030.2, December 21, 1998

Beckman Coulter, B-281030; B-281030.2, December 21, 1998 BNUMBER: B-281030; B-281030.2 DATE: December 21, 1998 TITLE: Beckman Coulter, B-281030; B-281030.2, December 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:Beckman Coulter File:B-281030; B-281030.2 Date:December 21, 1998 Alison L. Doyle, Esq., C. Stanley Dees, Esq., and Traci M. Vanek, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for the protester. Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., Holland & Knight, for Spectrofuge Corporation of North Carolina, Inc., an intervenor. Michael Colvin, Department of Health & Human Services, for the agency. Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Award is improper where awardee's proposal does not conform to material solicitation requirements regarding preventive maintenance services, contract termination, and submission of a fixed-price offer. DECISION Beckman Coulter, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Spectrofuge Corporation of North Carolina, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 273-98-P-0008, issued by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Department of Health and Human Services, for on-going preventive maintenance, rotor inspection and emergency repair of Beckman scientific instruments/equipment at NIEHS, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Beckman challenges the agency's evaluation of technical proposals and asserts that Spectrofuge submitted a technically noncompliant best and final offer (BAFO) which the agency attempted to cure by engaging in improper discussions. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued as a commercial item solicitation on May 20, 1998, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a 1-year base period with four 1-year options for the maintenance, repair and relocation[1] of certain scientific equipment manufactured by Beckman. RFP, Description and Specifications at 23. Offerors were to "furnish all necessary personnel, labor, equipment, tools, parts, materials and supplies to prepare and execute complete maintenance, repairs, and relocations to Government-owned Beckman [i]nstruments." RFP, Amendment 1, Supplies or Services and Prices, at 3. The RFP listed the Beckman instruments that were to be covered (providing model numbers and quantities), and stated that the contractor was to provide "trained personnel with experience in the repair and maintenance of the equipment types listed herein." RFP, Description and Specifications at 24. Offerors were required to provide pricing for one and two preventive maintenances (PM) per year, with the agency determining which of the PM schedules to award. RFP, Amendment 1, Supplies or Services and Prices at 3-22a. In the specifications section, the RFP provided that "[e]quipment shall be maintained by the contractor to 100% of original Beckman specifications and technical updates." RFP, Description and Specifications at 25. The solicitation provided that award would be made "to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered" and that technical proposals would be scored on the basis of plan of operation (40 points), experience of offeror (30 points), and experience of key senior service and field engineers (30 points), for a possible technical score of 100 points. RFP at 42. Under plan of operation, offerors were advised that the agency would evaluate: the offeror's specific plans for insuring that preventive maintenance and remedial repairs are performed at the highest possible level of quality and responsiveness and to 100% of original Beckman specifications and technical updates. Plan should include details on availability of senior service engineering staff, quality control, and availability of manufacturer's approved spare parts. Id. The RFP advised that under the experience factor offerors would be evaluated on their "experience in providing similar types of service in both the government and private sector," and under the experience of key senior service and field engineers factor, offerors would be evaluated on the "experience of [their] engineering staff in providing these types of services on this equipment in an operation of this size and type," and that "[p]roof of training must be provided." Id. For award purposes, the RFP stated that the agency would evaluate offers by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement.