O. Ames Company, B-283943, January 27, 2000

B-283943 Jan 27, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Which protester alleges will fail in extremely cold temperatures. The entrenching tool is a light-weight. The protester contends that Fiskars' entrenching tool is not equal to its own in durability. The engineers were able to determine that newer commercial variants were available. They were unable to determine whether the commercial variants represented a significant improvement over the currently fielded tool. Which was structured to permit the agency to evaluate alternative products for comparison with the currently fielded one. Offerors were required to submit a technical proposal of no more than three pages describing how their proposed item met these requirements. The notice provided that each offeror with acceptable past performance whose proposal was evaluated as technically acceptable and whose price was fair and reasonable would be awarded a contract for 40 items. View Decision Matter of: O. Ames Company File: B-283943 Date: January 27, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The O. Ames Company protests the award of a contract to Fiskars Inc., Gerber Legendary Blades Division, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAD16-99-R-0100, issued by the Department of the Army for entrenching tools for use by the Marine Corps. The entrenching tool is a light-weight, collapsible tool that can be used in the field as a shovel, pick, hammer, and saw. The protester contends that Fiskars' entrenching tool is not equal to its own in durability, as required by the solicitation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army explains that, in conjunction with the Marine Corps, it currently fields an entrenching tool typically purchased from a General Services Administration schedule contract and supplied by Ames. Despite material advances in many fields, the design of the Ames tool has remained essentially unchanged for a decade, leading agency engineers to question whether there might be other commercially available entrenching tools that would offer a better value to the Marine Corps by providing lighter weight, enhanced durability, or improved ergonomics. Through market research, the engineers were able to determine that newer commercial variants were available, but they were unable to determine whether the commercial variants represented a significant improvement over the currently fielded tool. Accordingly, the Army issued the subject solicitation, which was structured to permit the agency to evaluate alternative products for comparison with the currently fielded one. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12.6 (Streamlined Procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation for Commercial Items), the Army posted notice of a combined synopsis/solicitation for the entrenching tools on the Commerce Business Daily Online on January 4, 1999. The solicitation sought proposals for entrenching tools meeting the following requirements: --capable of operating fully in all terrestrial extremes (jungle, arctic, and temperate environment) in all weather conditions; --collapsible (folding or telescopic) with a curved blade capable of being used as a shovel when fully extended and as a pick when locked at a 90 degree angle from the handle; --made of corrosion resistant materials and durable enough to withstand use in a military environment; and --weighing less--and being no larger when folded--than the currently fielded entrenching tool made by Ames (which weighs 2.3 pounds) and having equal or greater durability as determined through materials evaluation than the Ames tool. Offerors were required to submit a technical proposal of no more than three pages describing how their proposed item met these requirements, along with commercial product literature, past performance information, a price, and two product samples. The notice provided that each offeror with acceptable past performance whose proposal was evaluated as technically acceptable and whose price was fair and reasonable would be awarded a contract for 40 items. These items would then be tested in a simulated combat environment to assess performance, equipment compatibility, safety, ease of use, durability, and overall user acceptance. Based on the results of the testing, the Army would determine whether, and to which contractor, to award a follow-on indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract. /1/ Four proposals were received by the January 22 due date. In addition, Ames submitted a one-page letter (which it referred to as a proposal, but which did not include past performance or pricing information), in which it noted that it could not meet the delivery schedule or the requirement for a tool lower in weight than the currently fielded one given that its tool was the currently fielded one.