Intermagnetics General Corporation, B-286596, January 19, 2001

B-286596 Jan 19, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency improperly evaluated proposals on the basis of two unannounced criteria is denied where. Although the first criterion was not specifically set forth in the solicitation. Protester was on notice of it from discussions. Was immaterial and not prejudicial to the firm. 2. Protest that agency improperly selected higher-priced proposal for award is denied where solicitation provided for award on a best value basis and agency reasonably concluded that the technical superiority of awardee's proposal warranted payment of its higher price. These components are part of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner for cardiac studies in large animal models. /1/ The protester challenges the evaluation of proposals and award to a higher-priced offeror. View Decision Matter of: Intermagnetics General Corporation File: B-286596 Date: January 19, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Intermagnetics General Corporation (IGC) protests the award of a contract to Oxford Instruments America, Inc. under solicitation No. NHLBI-PS-2000-631, issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services, for a 1.5 tesla (T) magnet and/or a gradient coil and its integrated shim coils, known as the gradient shim assembly, to be installed in the magnet. These components are part of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner for cardiac studies in large animal models. /1/ The protester challenges the evaluation of proposals and award to a higher-priced offeror. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, as amended, requested fixed-price, commercial item proposals for delivery and installation of either (1) both the MRI magnet and the gradient/shim assembly, or (2) the MRI magnet or the gradient shim assembly. The solicitation provided for award "to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered." Solicitation at 7. It also included technical performance specifications, identified as "minimum qualification criteria," Solicitation at 7-10, and offerors were required to "include all information which documents and/or supports the qualification criteria" and were "reminded that award will be made to the offeror whose proposal meets or exceeds the qualification criteria." Id. at 7, 10. The minimum qualification criteria for the magnet included the requirements that a "40 cm inner-diameter gradient coil and its integrated room temperature shim coils will be installed in this magnet," and the "magnet manufacturer should consult with the gradient manufacturer regarding the exact dimension of the magnet bore space [i.e., the space where the gradient shim assembly would be installed], and requirements on the gradient/room-temperature shim assembly for proper mounting in the magnet." Solicitation at 7. /2/ The minimum qualification criteria for the gradient/shim assembly included the requirements that the "gradient coil should have a 40 cm diameter or larger inner clear bore," the "gradient coil and its integrated room-temperature shim coils should be mounted permanently in a commercial whole-body 1.5T magnet of 900mm or larger bore size and approximately 1.7m length," and "[y]our company should contact the magnet manufacturer for exact dimensions of the available magnet bore space, and should mount the gradient/shim assembly into the magnet according to the proper method recommended by the magnet manufacturer." Solicitation at 8. /3/ The agency received four offers. IGC offered the magnet alone, while Oxford offered both the magnet and the gradient/shim assembly. (The other offers are not relevant here.) IGC's and Oxford's offered magnets were evaluated as acceptable; all of the offered gradient shim assemblies, including Oxford's, were evaluated as unacceptable. The agency conducted written and oral discussions and requested revised and best and final offers (BAFO). IGC's BAFO price of $240,000 for the magnet was low, and Oxford's price of $289,278 for its magnet was second low. Since none of the offered gradient shim assemblies met the specifications, the agency became concerned with the installation compatibility of a third party's gradient shim assembly into the offered magnets, as well as performance and cost risks in matching the gradient shim assembly to the magnet. Recommendation for Award at 2; see also Postaward Debriefing of IGC, Oct. 5, 2000, at 1. Thus, during discussions the agency asked IGC "whether there exists a Gradient System that readily goes into the IGC Magnet and meets the Gradient System specifications of the solicitation." Contracting Officer's (CO's) Statement at 11, 14, and 16. IGC did not identify a gradient shim assembly that was compatible with its offered magnet.