Bulova Technologies LLC, B-281384; B-281384.2, February 3,

Bulova Technologies LLC, B-281384; B-281384.2, February 3, BNUMBER: B-281384; B-281384.2 DATE: February 3, 1999 TITLE: Bulova Technologies LLC, B-281384; B-281384.2, February 3, 1999 ********************************************************************** 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:Bulova Technologies LLC File:B-281384; B-281384.2 Date:February 3, 1999 Glenn A. Rowley, Esq., John E. McCarthy, Jr., Esq., and Donald E. Sovie, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for the protester. Larisa A. Trainor, Esq., Anne B. Perry, Esq., and Louis D. Victorino, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, an intervenor. Larry Brady, Esq., Gerald T. Williams, Esq., and Maj. Cynthia M. Mabry, U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Marie Penny Ahearn, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Allegation that protester would have been able to eliminate certain deficiencies in the portion of its proposal related to a certain item, had the agency made predecessor contract information available, is untimely where first raised after closing time for receipt of proposals and protester knew that the item had been used under prior contract (and actually requested that the item be provided as government-furnished equipment), but neither requested information about the item, nor protested its omission from the solicitation prior to the closing time. 2. Protest that agency improperly considered offerors' experience in manufacturing specific item being acquired is denied where evaluation factors encompassed consideration of such experience. 3. Protest that evaluation improperly was based on unstated criteria--methodology to mitigate component obsolescence of a specific component--is denied where, contrary to protester's position, record indicates that evaluation was conducted on basis of general methodology to mitigate component obsolescence, as provided for in solicitation, and protester failed to present a plan in this area. 4. Protest that agency improperly evaluated protester's price assumption--that component parts will function properly when manufactured to technical data package and assembled--as inconsistent with solicitation is denied, where solicitation specifically provided that contractor was not to assume that all possible combinations of tolerances and fits permitted by specifications/drawings would consistently satisfy test requirements. 5. Where solicitation advised offerors that government intended to make award on basis of intitial proposals, contracting agency was not obligated to conduct discussions concerning protester's proposal, which was rated marginal with significant weaknesses based on omissions/informational deficiencies. DECISION Bulova Technologies LLC protests the award of a contract to KDI Precision Products, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAE30-98-R-0310, issued by the Department of the Army for production, testing, load, assembly, pack, and delivery of M734A1 fuzes used in 120mm mortar systems.[1] The protester challenges the evaluation and award on several grounds. We deny the protest. The RFP, which limited competition to small businesses, provided for award of a fixed-price contract on a best value basis, applying the following four evaluation factors, in descending order of importance: (1) quality, (2) cost, (3) management, and (4) past performance. In the actual evaluation, quality was weighted at 50 percent, cost at 25 percent, management at 15 percent, and past performance at 10 percent. The quality factor included three subfactors--manufacturing process, technical capabilities and facilities/capital equipment. The management factor included two subfactors--program management and configuration management. The RFP provided that quality and management were to be assigned color ratings of blue, green, yellow, or red and assessed for proposal risk using the ratings of low, moderate, and high.[2] Past performance was to be evaluated using the same adjectival risk ratings. RFP sec. M.1, M.3-M.6, at 84-92. Cost was to be evaluated by adding the price for the basic year (first article and production quantity) to the total of all evaluated prices for all option years. The solicitation provided that the "Government intends to award without discussions" and, therefore, "[e]ach initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms." RFP sec. M.2, at 85. The statement of work consisted of a CD-ROM technical data package (TDP) with requirements and drawings which were described as "defin[ing] the effort required" and were to be used "as the approved Product Baseline documentation . . .