Stratus Systems, Inc., B-281645, February 24, 1999

B-281645 Feb 24, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Such that the protester should have known and understood the agency's concerns. Technical approach (with five subfactors)/2/ and past performance each were more important than price. That price was an important factor and its importance would increase as the degree of equality of the proposals increased. One offer was determined to be yellow/marginally satisfactory from a technical standpoint and excluded from the competitive range. /3/ The evaluators found that Survival Systems proposed a complete system. Which was designed for easy changing of components. Was powered by relatively inexpensive battery packs of "C" cell alkaline batteries. This proposal was rated green/acceptable. Which are more expensive than normal alkaline batteries. View Decision Matter of: Stratus Systems, Inc. File: B-281645 Date: February 24, 1999 *. Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Stratus Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Survival Systems Group USA under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTCG38-98-R-J00002, issued by the United States Coast Guard for 42 emergency egress lighting systems for the HH60J helicopter. /1/ Stratus principally argues that the agency misevaluated technical and price proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued March 5, 1998, contemplated the award of a fixed-price commercial item supply contract to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation would be most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. Agency Report (AR), Tab E, RFP at 6. The RFP stated that a single award would be made based on the evaluation factors of technical approach (the most important factor), past performance and price. Id. Technical approach (with five subfactors)/2/ and past performance each were more important than price; the RFP stated, however, that price was an important factor and its importance would increase as the degree of equality of the proposals increased. Id. The agency received four offers; following evaluation, one offer was determined to be yellow/marginally satisfactory from a technical standpoint and excluded from the competitive range. /3/ The evaluators found that Survival Systems proposed a complete system, which appeared easy to install and maintain. It took 2-1/2 hours to install the system, which was designed for easy changing of components, had an excellent range of visibility, and was powered by relatively inexpensive battery packs of "C" cell alkaline batteries. Testing of the system could include actually illuminating the exit lights. This proposal was rated green/acceptable. Stratus also offered a complete system, which could be installed within 3-1/2 hours. Its system used lithium batteries, which are more expensive than normal alkaline batteries. The evaluators found that testing of Stratus's system would check the battery, sensor and circuit condition, but would not illuminate the actual emergency lights; if the lights were illuminated during testing, they would have to be replaced, at a cost of approximately [deleted]. /4/ This proposal nevertheless also was rated green/acceptable. Following discussions, best and final offers (BAFO) were received and evaluated. In its BAFO, Survival Systems was found to have improved the design of its mounting brackets and backing plates to reduce or eliminate a potential snag hazard; as a result, its rating was upgraded to blue/outstanding. Stratus's BAFO offered to provide a de-coupling module to reduce the risk of maintenance personnel accidentally activating the inversion sensor. However, because the lights still would have to be replaced when used (accidently or due to training needs), and in view of the associated costs, its rating remained green/acceptable. Survival System offered a price of $275,100; the protester offered a price of [deleted]. The agency's tradeoff analysis stated as follows: The difference in price between the two systems is [deleted]. If we were to install the Stratus product, the accidental or intentional illumination of a system more than 56 times over the life of the airframe would cost more in replacement parts than we would save in initial acquisition. Assuming a 20 year life, that would be less than 3 times per year. With 42 aircraft at eight different air stations, the potential for activation of the system is far greater than 3 times per year. Other considerations that favor the [Survival System] product are the ease of maintenance, the durability of the system, the additional range of visibility, and the ability of the aircrew to actually see the system illuminated during testing. AR, Tab M, Trade-off Analysis at 1. The agency thus awarded the contract to Survival System; this protest followed. The protester raises several arguments concerning the evaluation and award decision, all of which we find to be without merit.