B. E. Meyers & Company, Inc., B-283796, December 14, 1999

B-283796 Dec 14, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Exclusion of protester's proposal from the competitive range was not improper where the agency reasonably concluded that there were significant deficiencies in the protester's proposal which made it technically unacceptable as submitted and that major revisions would have been required to make it acceptable. The units were to be manufactured in accordance with the RFP's statement of work (SOW). Drawings that were incorporated by reference. Offerors were allowed a total of 68 pages for the executive summary and technical proposals combined. Initial proposals for the NVCSWS were received from two offerors. The Meyers proposal stated that it was offering to replace the specified biocular eyepiece with its own product. View Decision Matter of: B. E. Meyers & Company, Inc. File: B-283796 Date: December 14, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION B. E. Meyers & Company, Inc. (Meyers) protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-99-R-0122, issued by the Department of the Navy for the purchase of two different types of weapons sights--the night vision crew-served weapon sight (NVCSWS) and the submersible night vision individual weapon sight. /1/ We deny the protest. Issued on July 13, 1999, the RFP called for the supply of up to 1,600 fixed-price NVCSWS units over a 5-year period. The units were to be manufactured in accordance with the RFP's statement of work (SOW), performance specifications, and drawings that were incorporated by reference. The pertinent performance specification stated that each NVCSWS would consist of an objective lens assembly, a battery housing, an image intensifier tube, a biocular eyepiece, a mounting system, a daylight cover, two batteries, a lens cleaning kit, a carrying bag, a shipping/storage case, and a reticle. RFP, attach. 3, Secs. 3.1, 3.3.2. The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value after evaluation of technical, past performance, and price factors. The RFP directed offerors to submit technical and past performance proposals for evaluation; offerors were allowed a total of 68 pages for the executive summary and technical proposals combined. RFP, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 52.212-1 Addendum, at 16-19, and amend. 1, at 2. The RFP required that "[e]ach technical proposal shall be specific, detailed, and complete as to clearly and fully demonstrate that the prospective contractor has a thorough knowledge and understanding of the requirements . . . ." RFP, FAR Sec. 52.212-1 Addendum, at 17. The RFP stated that "[t]he Offeror shall provide detailed answers to demonstrate that their proposed units meet the requirements of the Performance Specification and SOW." Id. The RFP also specified that offers should reply to each RFP requirement and should include references to commercially available technical literature, or include sufficient technical detail, to substantiate the offeror's reply to each requirement. Id. The RFP specifically required that "[e]ach response shall describe the system(s) characteristics and performance with respect to the requirements specified in each paragraph of the applicable Performance Specification." Id. Initial proposals for the NVCSWS were received from two offerors--Litton Electro-Optical Systems (Litton) and Meyers. The entire Meyers technical proposal consisted of three pages (one of which dealt exclusively with warranties). Agency Report, Tab 5, Meyers Technical Proposal, at 3-5. The proposal included a picture of the proposed biocular eyepiece but did not include any technical literature, references to commercially available technical literature, or detailed discussion of the technical specifications of the offered components to demonstrate that the protester's proposed system would meet the RFP's numerous requirements. Significantly, the Meyers proposal stated that it was offering to replace the specified biocular eyepiece with its own product, and specifically stated that the required image intensifier tube and mounting systems were not included. Id. at 3-4. Additionally, as the agency points out, Meyers did not propose to supply the required battery housing design and eyeshield assembly. Agency Report at 6. Based upon the lack of any technical data to support the components that were proposed and the fact that Meyers was proposing to supply only part of the required system, the agency's technical evaluators determined that the proposal did not meet or address many of the RFP's minimum requirements and that it had no strengths, but contained [deleted] major weaknesses and [deleted] major deficiencies. Agency Report, Tab 7, Technical Evaluation, at 31. In fact, the evaluators found that Meyers proposed to provide only approximately 20 percent of the RFP's required major system components. Agency Report at 6.