Techseco, Inc., B-284949, June 19, 2000

B-284949 Jun 19, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency reasonably rejected as technically unacceptable a proposal that was noncompliant with material solicitation requirements that proposed service engineers possess current training certifications issued by specified equipment manufacturers. Techseco and Flowmeter were the only firms that submitted proposals by the February 18 closing time. Its proposal was found to be technically unacceptable because its proposed service engineers did not possess the required certifications. Which indicated that Techseco's proposed service engineers did not currently possess Lifespring certification but were seeking to obtain training and certification at an unspecified later date. Techseco's proposal was eliminated from consideration for award as technically unacceptable. View Decision Matter of: Techseco, Inc. File: B-284949 Date: June 19, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Techseco, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable and the award of a contract to Flowmeter Services & Energy Management Consultants, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP3100-00-R-0005, issued as a small business set-aside by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for preventive maintenance and repair services on certain metering and data collection systems located at the Defense Distribution Depot Norfolk (DDNV) complex at the Norfolk Naval Station. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to the low-priced, technically acceptable offeror for a base year with four 1-year options. RFP at 4, 11. Regarding the equipment to be maintained, the statement of work noted that the meters and meter processors at DDNV had been manufactured by Engineering Measurements Company (EMCO), and that the facility had Enersave II and/or Energy Manager NT data collection systems manufactured by Lifespring Resources. RFP attach. 1, at 1. The solicitation advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated for technical acceptability only and set forth three evaluation factors to determine acceptability, as follows: 1. Service Engineers . . . shall demonstrate practical working knowledge maintaining and repairing steam meter equipment. 2. Service Engineers . . . shall possess a current certification issued by Engineering Measurements Company (EMCO) to install, maintain and repair its flow meters and processors. 3. Service Engineers . . . shall possess a current certification issued by Lifespring Resources to operate and maintain the Enersave II and/or the Energy Manager NT data collection system. RFP at 11. The RFP specified that the three technical factors listed above established the minimum criteria required by the agency to determine a proposal acceptable, and cautioned offerors that "[i]n order for a proposal to be determined technically acceptable, it must be technically acceptable under each of [these] . . . technical factors." Id. In addition, the RFP at page 10 incorporated by reference a modified version of the standard provision "Instructions to Offerors - - Commercial Items," FAR Sec. 52.212-1, informing offerors that the government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions, therefore initial offers should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. Techseco and Flowmeter were the only firms that submitted proposals by the February 18 closing time. Techseco submitted the low-priced offer, but its proposal was found to be technically unacceptable because its proposed service engineers did not possess the required certifications. Specifically, Techseco proposed two named service engineers and provided information demonstrating that they had the required practical working knowledge maintaining and repairing steam metering equipment, but provided a certificate issued by EMCO for only one of the proposed service engineers, and even that certification had an expiration date of February 28, 1986. Agency Report, Tab 9, Techseco Proposal, at 6-7. Techseco provided no certification from Lifespring for either proposed engineer. Instead, in its proposal cover letter, Techseco referenced an enclosed February 16 letter addressed to Lifespring, which indicated that Techseco's proposed service engineers did not currently possess Lifespring certification but were seeking to obtain training and certification at an unspecified later date. Techseco requested that Lifespring "consider us registered for your next training session." Id. at 5. Because the agency had determined not to conduct discussions and Techseco had not submitted all the information required to be determined technically acceptable and specifically had submitted evidence of noncompliance with the Lifespring certification requirement, Techseco's proposal was eliminated from consideration for award as technically unacceptable.