Infrared Technologies Corporation, B-282912, September 2, 1999

B-282912 Sep 02, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a Navy contract award for thermographic inspection services, contending that the Navy improperly evaluated the proposals. GAO held that the Navy reasonably made award to the lower-priced, technically superior bid. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: Infrared Technologies Corporation File: B-282912 Date: September 2, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Infrared Technologies Corporation (ITC) protests the award of a contract to Systems Energy Audit Company, Inc. (SEA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N32205-99-R-6086, issued by the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command (MSC), for thermographic inspection services onboard MSC vessels. ITC, among other allegations, contends that the evaluation of proposals was improper. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on March 30, 1999, as a small business set-aside, sought proposals for the thermographic inspection of shipboard equipment, involving the use of infrared photography to detect system anomalies, such as excess heat or wear. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a base year and 4 option years. RFP Secs. B, L-4. Section M-1 of the RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to provide the best overall value to the government. Section M-1 also advised offerors that "[all] evaluation factors other than cost or price when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price. The Government may award to a higher priced proposal if it affords the Government greater overall benefit." The RFP listed the following evaluation criteria, in descending order of importance: past performance; equipment and capabilities; personnel (resumes, training, and experience); and customer satisfaction. Id. Sec. M-4. The RFP instructed offerors as to the information that was required to be included in the proposals for evaluation under each of the stated criteria and provided that: technical proposals submitted by offerors will be evaluated to determine the offeror's ability to satisfactorily perform the requirements of this solicitation. . . . * * * * * Omissions and/or inaccurate or inadequate responses will have a negative effect on the overall evaluation and technical proposal rating. Id., attach. J-1, Paras. 1, 3. The RFP, through incorporation by reference of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 52.215-1, provided that, since the agency intended to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions, each offeror's initial proposal was to contain that offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. Id. Sec. L-1. ITC and SEA submitted the two proposals received by MSC by the scheduled April 30 closing time. SEA, the incumbent contractor for these services, submitted the lower-priced proposal, at $500,655.50. SEA's technical proposal, which received a score of 90.75 (out of 100 points), was considered excellent overall and found to be technically superior to ITC's substantially higher-priced proposal. Source Selection Results Memorandum, May 10, 1999, at 1. SEA's technical proposal was rated higher than the protester's proposal under each of the evaluation factors for award. Id. ITC's proposal was rated satisfactory overall, with a technical merit score of 75.24. Id. The evaluators concluded that the proposal indicated that ITC was qualified to perform the infrared inspection services, but that insufficient information was provided in the proposal to warrant a higher technical rating. The evaluators downgraded the ITC proposal, for instance, for its failure to sufficiently address the following: the quality of the offeror's past contract performance (e.g., regarding schedule adherence); the offeror's familiarity with certain MSC-specific systems; certain proposal statements regarding personnel (e.g., concerning the availability and qualifications of additional personnel); and ITC's only generally stated assertions of customer satisfaction. Id. at 2-3. Consequently, the ITC proposal was found to present minimal to moderate performance risk. Id. The SEA proposal, on the other hand, was evaluated as presenting no performance risk based on its detailed demonstration of the awardee's qualifications, and substantially similar experience, as well as its documented high level of customer satisfaction. The evaluators also had knowledge of SEA's successful performance of its prior contract with the agencyfor these services. Id. On May 28, based on its comparative evaluation of the proposals, MSC awarded a contract under the RFP to SEA, based on its technically superior, substantially lower-priced proposal. ITC's protest of the evaluation of proposals was filed subsequent to a debriefing by MSC.