Hubbell Electric Heater Company, B-289098, December 27, 2001

B-289098 Dec 27, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested an Army contract award for the development and production of a field dishwashing system, contending that the Army's source selection decision lacked a reasonable basis. GAO found that the Army determined that the protester's failure to adequately address how it would establish compliance with quality assurance standards at the time of production represented a risk that overweighed the one percent price advantage of its proposal. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Hubbell Electric Heater Company, B-289098, December 27, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Hubbell Electric Heater Company protests the award of a contract to SFA, Inc., Frederick Manufacturing Division under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAD16-01-R-0016, issued by the United States Army Natick Soldier Center for the development and production of the Advanced Food Sanitation Center (AFSC), which essentially is a field dishwashing system. The protester contends that the source selection decision lacked a reasonable basis. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued June 1, 2001, provided for award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a 2-year base with three 2-year options. The RFP specified that "[t]he contractor shall comply with the specification titled either ISO 9000/9001/9002 Model quality assurance in production and installation." /1/ RFP Sec. E1.e. The RFP provided that the source selection decision would be based on the conduct of a tradeoff among the areas and factors identified, and award to be made to the offeror whose proposal offered the best overall value to the government. The RFP identified the following evaluation areas and factors: Area I Technical. Factor (a) is more important than Factor (b). a. Overall Design b. Integrated Water Heating System and Spray Washer Design Area II Management and Experience. Factors (a) and (b) are equal in importance and are more important than Factor (c) which is more important than Factor (d). a. Facilities and Equipment b. Quality Assurance Program c. Experience d. Warranty Area III Contract/Price Proposal Area IV Past Performance RFP Sec. M3. The RFP stated that the technical area was the most important, and that the management and experience area was more important than the contract/price proposal area, which was more important than the past performance area. Technical, management, and past performance, when combined, were significantly more important than cost. The RFP provided that proposals would be assigned an adjectival rating and would be evaluated for proposal and performance risk. Under the quality assurance evaluation factor, the RFP stated that "status of compliance with ISO 9000/9001/9002" would be examined. RFP Sec. M4, Area II, Factor b. Two offerors, Hubbell and SFA, submitted proposals. The source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated both proposals, and found that both contained significant weaknesses and some deficiencies. Agency Report (AR), Enclosure I, Initial Evaluation Report. However, the SSEB determined that all weaknesses and deficiencies could be resolved through discussions and included both offerors' proposals in the competitive range. Id. As relevant here, the SSEB identified Hubbell's quality assurance program as a deficiency. More specifically, the SSEB determined that: Hubbell proposes to use a Quality Program that conforms to MIL-I-45208A. There is no mention of their compliance with or transitioning to the ISO 9000/9001/9002 Quality Standards as required by . . . the RFP. AR, Tab I, SSEB Initial Evaluation Report. Written discussions were held with both offerors. Among other things, Hubbell was requested to "[p]ropose how [it] would conform to the ISO 9000/9001/9002 Quality Standard as required by . . . [the] RFP." /2/ AR, Enclosure J, Hubbell Discussion Items. Hubbell responded as follows: The U.S. Navy has always required that manufacturers of critical components conform to the quality control requirements of MIL-I-45208A which is a comprehensive and thorough quality control system. MIL-I-45208A incorporates the same components as required in the more recent commercial ISO9000. MIL-I-45208A is in no way an inferior quality control system to ISO9000, it just happens to be the quality control system written for certain government purchases. Both MIL-I-45208A and ISO9000 use essentially the same structure to ensure the quality of the end product. Therefore, Hubbell's current quality control system, which is in conformance to MIL-I-45208A, meets all of the essential components of ISO9000. However, given the current use of ISO9000 as a benchmark for QC operations across a wide range of business types, it is Hubbell's intent to seek ISO9000 approval in the very near future. It is estimated that the approval process will take six months to complete.