Essex Electro Engineers, Inc., B-284149; B-284149.2, February 28, 2000

Essex Electro Engineers, Inc., B-284149; B-284149.2, February 28, 2000 TITLE: Essex Electro Engineers, Inc., B-284149; B-284149.2, February 28, 2000 BNUMBER: B-284149; B-284149.2 DATE: February 28, 2000 ********************************************************************** Essex Electro Engineers, Inc., B-284149; B-284149.2, February 28, 2000 Decision Matter of: Essex Electro Engineers, Inc. File: B-284149; B-284149.2 Date: February 28, 2000 Charles E. Raley, Esq., for the protester. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Esq., and Robert E. Dudley, Jr., Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester's proposal was reasonably evaluated by the contracting agency as technically unacceptable and excluded from the competitive range where the proposal contained numerous deficiencies and disadvantages. DECISION Essex Electro Engineers, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAB07-99-R-B404, issued by the Communications and Electronics Command, Department of the Army, for 100-kilowatt (kW) and 200-kW tactical quiet generators (TQG). Essex contends that the evaluation of its proposal and its exclusion from the competitive range were improper. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued to acquire modernized standard mobile 100-kW and 200-kW electric power generators for use by the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. Contracting Officer's Statement, Dec. 12, 1999, at 1; RFP attach. 1, Statement of Work (SOW), at 1. The 100-kW and 200-kW TQGs will replace the current 100-kW and 200-kW generators and will have the following desirable characteristics relative to current generators: less weight, diesel/JP-8 fueled, reduced aural signature, quality power output, improved reliability and maintainability, and decreased procurement and operational/maintenance costs. RFP attach. 1, SOW, at 1. The RFP executive summary explains that the procurement is being conducted in three phases. Phase I of the procurement is an engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) effort, during which the successful contractor(s) will fabricate prototype generator sets. [1] During phase II of the effort, pre-production TQGs will be delivered by the successful contractor, based upon the contractor's phase I prototypes, with the TQGs being subjected to pre-production qualification testing conducted by the government, with the assistance of the contractor, to verify the TQGs' conformance to the relevant requirements and to evaluate the units' performance characteristics. After the successful completion of the Phase II effort, the agency may exercise the option for Phase III, during which the contractor will manufacture and deliver the TQGs. The RFP contemplates the award of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract or contracts for phases I and II, and a fixed-price with economic price adjustment contract for phase III of the procurement. Award is to be made to the offeror(s) submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value to the agency based upon the following evaluation factors and subfactors: 1. Technical (a) Technical Design and Performance (b) Specific Design Characteristics (c) Technical Data (d) Capabilities, Plans, Personnel and Facilities 1. Logistics 2. (a) Operation and Support Analysis (b) Supportability Planning 3. Performance Risk 4. Cost/Price 5. Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization Plan RFP attach. 5, at 2. The technical evaluation factor is slightly more important than the logistics factor and the logistics factor is significantly more important than the performance risk factor. The RFP further states that the performance risk, cost/price, and small business and disadvantaged business utilization plan evaluation factors are equal in importance. Id. at 1. The RFP provides that under the technical evaluation factor, subfactors (a) and (b) are equal in importance and significantly more important than subfactors (c) and (d), which are equal in importance. With regard to the logistics evaluation factor, subfactor (a) is significantly more important than subfactor (b). Id. at 2. The RFP includes a detailed explanation of the agency's intended evaluation approach, and cautions, among other things, that "[m]ere statements of compliance or repetition of the technical and/or [l]ogistics requirement without an intelligent, complete discussion and analysis are unsatisfactory." Id. The RFP adds that the agency will evaluate each offeror's proposed technical approach to determine "the extent to which understanding is exhibited in the operational and technical requirements of the generator sets." Id. at 3.