HK Systems, Inc.--Protest and Reconsideration, B-291647.6; B-291647.7, August 29, 2003

HK Systems, Inc.--Protest and Reconsideration, B-291647.6; B-291647.7, August 29, 2003 TITLE: HK Systems, Inc.--Protest and Reconsideration, B-291647.6; B-291647.7, August 29, 2003 BNUMBER: B-291647.6; B-291647.7 DATE: August 29, 2003 ********************************************************************** HK Systems, Inc.--Protest and Reconsideration, B-291647.6; B-291647.7, August 29, 2003 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: HK Systems, Inc.--Protest and Reconsideration File: B-291647.6; B-291647.7 Date: August 29, 2003 William J. Spriggs, Esq., and Max V. Kidalov, Esq., Spriggs & Hollingsworth, for the protester. William H. Carroll, Esq., Dykema Gossett, for Siemens Dematic Corporation, an intervenor. Lt. Colonel Samuel T. Stevenson, Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Award to offeror that submitted low-priced proposal offering equipment required by the solicitation is unobjectionable, especially where offeror also was found technically more advantageous. DECISION HK Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Siemens Dematic Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP3100-02-R-0014, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Distribution Center (DDC), for the upgrade and/or reconfiguration of storage and retrieval systems, and for the installation of one automatic guided vehicle (AGV) system at the Defense Distribution Depot in San Diego, California. HK principally asserts that the awardee*s proposal is technically unacceptable because certain equipment proposed by Siemens does not comply with the RFP*s commerciality requirements. HK also requests reconsideration of our decision dismissing as untimely HK*s previously filed protests against the award to Siemens. We deny the protest and the request for reconsideration. The solicitation, issued on April 23, 2002, as a commercial-item procurement, provides for the award of a fixed-price contract on the basis of a *best value* determination. The RFP sets forth technical/business, past performance, and price as evaluation factors, and provides that the non-price evaluation factors when combined are significantly more important than price. Under the technical/business factor, the RFP specifies the following sub-elements: project management plan; organization structure and qualifications; system layout and design; integration of software; and reliability, maintainability and parts availability. The RFP states that alternate equipment and system architecture and layout may be proposed by the contractor, provided that all firm performance requirements specified in the RFP are satisfied by the proposed design. RFP S: 3.0. As relevant here, the RFP also specifically provides the following: All equipment (each whole product with its integral software) shall be the manufacturer*s current, commercially designed and available or a commercial product that has been slightly modified to fit the proposed system. The commercial product must have proven, successful field application for at least two years immediately preceding the issue date of this solicitation. The field experience of each specific equipment product shall have been gained by an identical or previous model to the one being offered. Id. Offerors were required to identify all areas of their proposal that differed from or enhanced the requirements of the technical specifications. RFP at 16. The solicitation defines an enhancement as any proposed change which fulfills a *specified requirement in a [manner] different from the Technical Specification or associated Drawings, but which results in better performance, safer operation, or lower cost at no sacrifice in performance.* Id. The solicitation provides that an enhancement would be evaluated to determine if the change offered results in lower cost and higher efficiency of the operation. RFP at 17. Four proposals were received by the June 7, 2002 closing date and, after discussions, the agency determined to award to Siemens on the basis that it offered the best value to the government. After receiving a debriefing, HK filed an agency-level protest on September 18. After the agency denied its protest, HK filed a protest with our Office on November 4, in which it argued that the agency improperly evaluated Siemens* past performance and HK*s technical proposal. HK also argued that the agency*s discussions with the protester were inadequate.