STIDD Systems, Inc., B-292075; B-292075.2, June 17, 2003

STIDD Systems, Inc., B-292075; B-292075.2, June 17, 2003 TITLE: STIDD Systems, Inc., B-292075; B-292075.2, June 17, 2003 BNUMBER: B-292075; B-292075.2 DATE: June 17, 2003 ********************************************************************** STIDD Systems, Inc., B-292075; B-292075.2, June 17, 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: STIDD Systems, Inc. File: B-292075; B-292075.2 Date: June 17, 2003 Marcus B. Slater, Jr., Esq., and Jennifer J. Zeien, Esq., Slater & Zeien, LLP, for the protester. Robert E. Lieblich, Esq., Katherine A. Andrias, Esq., and William A. Longwell, Esq., Naval Sea Systems Command, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging awards under solicitation for lithium-ion batteries for mini‑submarines (Advanced SEAL Delivery System) is denied where: (1) based on information in proposal, agency reasonably assessed protester's proposal as weak or deficient based on noncompliance of its proposed system with solicitation requirements; and (2) the awardees, unlike the protester, possessed a full range of research, development, test and production capabilities, such that they could perform the necessary development. DECISION STIDD Systems, Inc. protests the Naval Sea Systems Command's (NAVSEA) award of contracts to Yardney Technical Products and SAFT America, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-02-R-6914, for lithium-ion battery cells or modules for the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS). STIDD challenges the evaluation of technical proposals. We deny the protest. The solicitation contemplated a two-phase procurement, commencing with the award of two Phase I contracts for the procurement of battery samples and battery test data, to determine a source of lithium-ion batteries for the ASDS to replace the current silver-zinc batteries used on the ASDS. ASDS is a battery-powered mini‑submarine--approximately 65 feet long and 8 feet in diameter, with a dry, pressurized interior--which can be used to transport Navy special operations forces and for intelligence collection and reconnaissance. U.S. General Accounting Office, Defense Acquisitions: Advanced SEAL Delivery System Needs Increased Oversight, GAO-03-442 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2003), at 3. The solicitation statement of work (SOW) defined the required battery sample as a 1/2-string subassembly (individual cells, interconnects, scanner(s), harnesses, electronics, hardware, and battery management software) that would be housed inside the ASDS titanium battery bottle. The 1/2‑string subassembly shall be representative of the production deliverable to meet the requirement for a complete ship-set ASDS battery. SOW I at P: 1.0. (Each 1/2-string assembly is contained in a single, titanium *battery bottle*; there are 7 strings‑‑14 1/2-strings--in a complete ship-set ASDS battery.) The RFP provided that, following the completion of Phase I, a competition would be conducted between the two Phase I awardees, resulting in the award of a Phase II indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract based on the battery developed by the successful offeror under its Phase I contract. In this regard, each offeror for Phase I was required to include in its proposal a not-to-exceed (NTE) pricing matrix for the batteries it would produce if selected for Phase II. The offerors were not permitted under the solicitation to offer a Phase I price of more than $1.5 million or a Phase II NTE price of more than $10 million per battery. RFP Amend. 0002 at 6. Award in Phase I was to be made to the offerors whose conforming proposals were most advantageous to the government, as determined under a two-step evaluation process. In step one, the agency was to evaluate whether offerors' technical proposals addressed specified go/no go criteria--with respect to the required minimum energy (1,200 kilowatt-hours (kWh)), size, cycle life, and discharge current of the battery--*in sufficient detail to clearly show that its proposal meets these minimum requirements*; if it were determined that any proposal failed to meet any of the go/no go criteria, evaluation of that proposal would immediately stop and the proposal would no longer be considered. RFP at 41.