North American Aerodynamics, Inc., B-285651, September 15, 2000

B-285651 Sep 15, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency's evaluation of protester's past performance was reasonably based upon comments received from one of protester's references and the agency's assessment of protester's subcontract performance under the prior contract for the required items. Delivery was required within 120 days after contract award. Offerors were informed that failure to propose a delivery schedule consistent with this requirement would result in the rejection of the offer. Past Performance Price Offerors were informed that the offeror submission factor (which concerns the offerors' completion of Standard Form 33 and promise to meet requirements such as the delivery schedule) would be evaluated on a pass/fail basis and that the offeror capability factor would be qualitatively evaluated. View Decision Matter of: North American Aerodynamics, Inc. File: B-285651 Date: September 15, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION North American Aerodynamics, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Triangle Parachute LLC under request for proposals (RFP ) No. N00174-00-R-0018, issued by the Department of the Navy, for the manufacture of subassembly panels, parachutes, and deployment bags in support of the Navy's Distributed Explosive Technology (DET) system. /1/ North American challenges the agency's evaluation of its and Triangle's proposals, and contends that Triangle misrepresented its commitment to meet the contract delivery schedule. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for the manufacture of parachutes and other supplies in accordance with government drawings and design specifications. Delivery was required within 120 days after contract award, and offerors were informed that failure to propose a delivery schedule consistent with this requirement would result in the rejection of the offer. The RFP provided for award without discussions on the basis of a cost/technical tradeoff, and stated the following evaluation factors and subfactors: Offeror submission Offeror capability 1. Technical capability a. Manufacturing experience and capability b. Quality assurance c. Inspection 2. Facilities 3. Past Performance Price Offerors were informed that the offeror submission factor (which concerns the offerors' completion of Standard Form 33 and promise to meet requirements such as the delivery schedule) would be evaluated on a pass/fail basis and that the offeror capability factor would be qualitatively evaluated. Within the offeror capability factor, the past performance subfactor was stated to be equal in value to the technical capability and facilities subfactors. The RFP provided that the evaluation ratings for the offeror capability factor would be used to calculate a level of confidence rating (LOCAR). The LOCAR score was stated to be more important than price. Detailed proposal preparation instructions were provided with regard to each of the offeror capability evaluation factors and subfactors. With respect to the technical capability subfactor, offerors were instructed to provide information demonstrating the firms' "having gained experience in the manufacturing of same or similar panels, parachutes and bags" on contracts within the past 5 years and to provide a brief description of the scope of past contracts that "demonstrate the offeror's ability to meet the requirements of the [statement of work];" offerors were also required to demonstrate the capability to develop and implement a strong quality assurance program and product inspection plan. RFP at 40. For the facilities subfactor, offerors were to identify their proposed facilities and "the specific equipment and tooling located at the facility(s) which will be utilized to support manufacturing efforts." RFP at 41. With respect to the past performance subfactor, offerors were instructed to provide at least three references who would be able to provide information for contracts within the past 3 years concerning the quality and timeliness of the offeror's work; the reasonableness of its pricing, costs, and claims; the reasonableness of its business behavior; its concern for the interest of its customers; and its integrity. Offerors were cautioned that the "[f]ailure of an offeror's references to respond within the allotted time frame will result in the inability of the Government to rank the offeror's past performance and will [a]ffect the overall LOCAR." Id. The Navy received offers from North American and Triangle, which were evaluated as follows by the agency's technical evaluation panel (TEP): North American Triangle Offeror submission Pass Pass Offeror capability Good Good . Technical capability Good Good . Facilities Good Good . Past Performance Good Good LOCAR .80 .80 Price $[DELETED] $175,476 Agency Report, Tab D, Business Clearance Memorandum (BCM), at 7-8.