Engineered Air Systems, Inc.; Hunter Manufacturing Company, B-283011; B-283011.2; B-283011.3, September 21, 1999

Engineered Air Systems, Inc.; Hunter Manufacturing Company, B-283011; B-283011.2; B-283011.3, September 21, 1999 TITLE: Engineered Air Systems, Inc.; Hunter Manufacturing Company, B-283011; B-283011.2; B-283011.3, September 21, 1999 BNUMBER: B-283011; B-283011.2; B-283011.3 DATE: September 21, 1999 ********************************************************************** Engineered Air Systems, Inc.; Hunter Manufacturing Company, B-283011; B-283011.2; B-283011.3, September 21, 1999 ecision Matter of: Engineered Air Systems, Inc.; Hunter Manufacturing Company File: B-283011; B-283011.2; B-283011.3 Date: September 21, 1999 Timothy F. Noelker, Esq., Steven E. Kellogg, Esq., and Linda L. Shapiro, Esq., Thompson Coburn, for Engineered Air Systems, Inc., and Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., and Jennifer C. Adams, Esq., Martin & Rylander, for Hunter Manufacturing Company, the protesters. David Vogel, Esq., and Matthew S. Perlman, Esq., Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, for Polartherm Oy, an intervenor. John E. Lariccia, Esq., and Bradley S. Adams, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the contracting agency treated protester and awardee unequally in assigning risk assessment ratings is denied where record provides a reasonable basis for the agency's conclusions that protester's proposal presented a moderate risk under performance requirements and that the awardee's proposal presented a low risk. 2. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the protester's and awardee's past performance is denied where the record establishes the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation and the protester merely disagrees with the agency's determination. 3. Allegation that agency improperly evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation, and the record reasonably supports the evaluators' conclusions. 4. Where record supports agency's conclusion that awardee's technical proposal was superior to that of the protesters, agency reasonably concluded that award should be made on to the technically superior proposal notwithstanding the associated price premium. 5. Agency conducted meaningful discussions concerning past performance where protester was placed on notice concerning negative past performance information. DECISION Engineering Air Systems, Inc. (EASI) and Hunter Manufacturing Company protest the award of a contract to Polartherm Oy under request for proposals (RFP) No. F09603-98-R-71047, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the development, first article test and production of new generation heaters (NGH) to be used as aerospace ground support equipment. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued February 10, 1999, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for eight first article units with five 1-year production options. The acquisition is to provide complete replacement of all existing H-1 heaters currently in use by the Air Force, other services, and foreign customers. Contracting Officer's Statement sect.1. The requirement is for a deployable, wheeled, trailer-mounted, duct-type heater which operates on multiple fuels, primarily JP-8 jet fuel, depending on environment and available supply. Id. The heater will provide warmth to personnel performing aircraft maintenance and heat aircraft cockpits, engines, cargo areas and temporary structures in various environments. Id. The acquisition was conducted using streamlined source selection procedures in accordance with the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). RFP sect. L-900. The RFP provided for award to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforming to the RFP requirements was judged to represent the best value to the government. RFP sect. M-900.1.0. The RFP defined best value as the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. Id. The RFP listed the following evaluation factors in descending order of importance: Factor I. Technical 1. Performance Requirements 2. Engineering 3. Production Planning 4. Management Factor II. Cost/Price General Considerations Within Factor I, the subfactors were also listed in descending order of importance. RFP sect. M.900.2.3. Each subfactor was to receive a color/adjectival rating and a proposal risk rating. [1] RFP sect. M.900.2.2. A performance risk rating, based upon the offeror's relevant past and present performance as it relates to the RFP requirements, was also to be assigned at the factor level. Id.