Wilcox Industries Corporation, B-281437.2; B-281437.3; B-281437.4, June 30, 1999

Wilcox Industries Corporation, B-281437.2; B-281437.3; B-281437.4, June 30, 1999 TITLE: Wilcox Industries Corporation, B-281437.2; B-281437.3; B-281437.4, June 30, 1999 BNUMBER: B-281437.2; B-281437.3; B-281437.4 DATE: June 30, 1999 ********************************************************************** Wilcox Industries Corporation, B-281437.2; B-281437.3; B-281437.4, June 30, 1999 Decision Matter of: Wilcox Industries Corporation File: B-281437.2; B-281437.3; B-281437.4 Date: June 30, 1999 Robert F. Guarasi for the protester. Patrick K. O'Keefe, Esq., and John M. Clerici, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for Insight Technology, Inc., an intervenor. Susan Spiegelman-Boyd, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably found through testing that protester's submitted product sample did not comply with salient characteristics of the product. 2. Protester whose product sample had been properly rejected as failing various salient characteristics of the product is an interested party to protest that the product samples of the awardee do not comply with the salient characteristics where the awardee is the only other offeror. 3. Awardee's product sample cannot be said to satisfy salient characteristic where this matter was not tested as required by the solicitation and the protester has presented unrebutted evidence that there was a likelihood that the awardee's product sample would not meet this characteristic if tested. DECISION Wilcox Industries Corporation protests the award of a contract to Insight Technology, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-98-R-0094, issued by the Department of the Navy for laser borelights. Wilcox argues that its low-priced proposal was improperly rejected by the agency for not meeting the stated salient characteristics, due to testing irregularities and bias on behalf of the agency evaluators. Wilcox also argues that the awardee's proposed product did not meet certain stated salient characteristics. We sustain the protest on the basis that Insight's product was not tested to ascertain compliance with certain salient characteristics required by the RFP. The laser borelight is used to determine the accuracy of various weapons. Agency Report at 2. The operator inserts a mandrel into the barrel of the weapon and then inserts the laser borelight device onto the mandrel. [1] Agency Report, Tab 12, Laser Borelight Test Report, at 10. The type of weapon that is to be boresighted determines the type of mandrel that the operator uses. In other words, the operator would use one size mandrel for a .50 caliber weapon, and a different size mandrel for a 5.56mm weapon. These different size mandrels allow the same laser borelight device to be used on a variety of weapons. The RFP was issued under the Streamlined Procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation for Commercial Items, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 12.6 in a Commerce Business Daily (CBD) notice on June 5, 1998. The RFP, issued on a brand name or equal basis, contemplated the award of a fixed price supply contract for a 5-year period. RFP at 1-2. The RFP provided that the agency sought Insight Technology Part No. LSB-001 or equal equipment. The RFP advised that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. Proposals were to be evaluated under the following factors, listed in descending order of importance: product samples, past performance and price. The RFP required offerors to propose commercial items and to provide with their offer three product samples for testing which "shall be evaluated to determine compliance with [the] Brand Name or Equal salient characteristics." Id. at 2. The RFP listed 15 salient characteristics, including salient characteristic No. 2, which states: The standard shall include interfaces that boresight all 5.56mm, 7.62mm and .50 caliber weapons. The interface mechanisms shall be easily installed, removable and interchangeable. The interfaces shall not cause damage to weapon's barrel. All interfaces shall retain adequate tightness when installed into the weapon's barrel, including after repeated use. Id. at 3. The agency received proposals only from Wilcox and Insight by the June 23 due date. The agency performed technical, past performance, and price evaluations on both proposals, and determined not to hold discussions. On February 11, the agency issued amendment No. 5, which requested revised prices, based on a different quantity of the borelight devices. [2] Both offerors submitted revised prices by the February 18, 1999 due date. Wilcox's evaluated price was $1,846,327 and Insight's evaluated price was $2,476,102.