Hydraulics International, Inc., B-284684; B-284684.2, May 24, 2000

Hydraulics International, Inc., B-284684; B-284684.2, May 24, 2000 TITLE: Hydraulics International, Inc., B-284684; B-284684.2, May 24, 2000 BNUMBER: B-284684; B-284684.2 DATE: May 24, 2000 ********************************************************************** Hydraulics International, Inc., B-284684; B-284684.2, May 24, 2000 Decision Matter of: Hydraulics International, Inc. File: B-284684; B-284684.2 Date: May 24, 2000 Alan Dickson, Esq., Paul Burkholder, Esq., and Shlomo D. Katz, Esq., Epstein, Becker & Green, for the protester. Lee P. Curtis, Esq., Howrey, Simon, Arnold & White, and Donald J. Carney, Esq., and Richard B. Clifford, Jr., Esq., Perkins Coie, for Malabar International, Inc., an intervenor. John E. Larriccia, Esq., and Sharon A. Jenks, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency improperly failed to advise protester during discussions that its price was so high as to make award to the firm unlikely, is denied where contemporaneous record indicates that agency determined that proposed price was reasonable, realistic and complete based on the technical approach; while Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 15.306(e)(3) gives contracting officer discretion to inform offeror that its cost/price is too high, it does not require that the contracting officer do so. 2. Protest that agency conducted an improper cost/technical tradeoff is denied where record indicates that agency recognized the technical advantages of the protester's proposal, but reasonably determined that those advantages were not worth its substantially higher price. DECISION Hydraulics International, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to Malabar International, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. F41608-98-R-13005, for hydraulic test stands (HTS). Hydraulics asserts that the evaluation of proposals was inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation and otherwise unreasonable. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued on November 6, 1998, contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract with a 4-year basic ordering period and pricing for up to 600 units of four types (including 2 diesel models and 2 electric models) of 4-wheeled, trailer-mounted, towable HTSs with purification and automated global control systems. [1] The HTSs are to be used for ground check and maintenance of aircraft hydraulic systems. Specifically, the HTS will provide two or three (depending on the model) independently controlled hydraulic subsystems furnishing up to 5,000 pounds of pressure per square inch, to pressurize aircraft hydraulic systems without the use of the aircraft engines and thus allow the functional check of flight control systems and landing gear operations, and will be capable of purifying the hydraulic fluids in the HTS and the aircraft without the use of external equipment. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conformed to the solicitation requirements and represented the best value to the government. The solicitation provided that proposals would be evaluated based on the following three evaluation areas: (1) technical, with factors for design (with a stated weight of 60 percent of technical and including subfactors for system design, reliability/maintainability and first article testing) and system production (40 percent and including subfactors for facilities, production plan and quality programs); (2) cost/price, which was to be evaluated for realism, completeness and reasonableness; and (3) general considerations, including the results of the pre-award survey, plant visits, and compliance with RFP terms and conditions. The solicitation stated that "the Technical Area is significantly more important than the Cost/Price Area and the cumulative General Considerations," and that cost/price and general considerations were of equal importance. RFP sect. M.2.3. Each factor and subfactor within the technical area was to receive a color/adjectival rating and a proposal risk assessment ("based on the risks that are identified with an offeror's proposed approach as it relates to accomplishing the requirements of the solicitation"). RFP sect. M.6.1. [2] Further, the solicitation set forth technical evaluation standards that the agency would apply in evaluating proposals; it listed the evaluation elements under each subfactor, provided for a rating of either not met (minus), meets (checkmark) or exceeds (plus) the stated threshold requirements, and cautioned that an offer receiving a minus rating after final proposal revisions (FPR) would be unacceptable. RFP, Technical Evaluation Standards, at 1.