Specific Systems, Ltd., B-292087.3, February 20, 2004

B-292087.3 Feb 20, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Specific Systems, Ltd. (SSL) protests the award of a contract to American Turbo Systems (ATS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F09603-02-R-70366, issued by the Department of the Air Force for roof-mounted air conditioner modules (RACM) that will be used to cool aircraft avionics systems while maintenance personnel work on aircraft. We deny the protest. View Decision B-292087.3, Specific Systems, Ltd., February 20, 2004 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. Matter of: Specific Systems, Ltd. File: B-292087.3 Date: February 20, 2004 Richard J. Vacura, Esq., Holly Emrick Svetz, Esq., Peter C. Sales, Esq., and John R. Zitko, Esq. Morrison & Foerster, for the protester. Clarence D. Long, III, Esq., and Paul S. Davison, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably concluded that awardee's proposal was technically acceptable based on evaluation of 25 of more than 100 technical requirements, where solicitation did not require evaluation of each and every requirement and only required offerors to respond to the 25 requirements, and awardee's proposal did not suggest it would not comply with any of the requirements. 2. Under a solicitation providing for –Technically Acceptable-Performance/Price Tradeoff— evaluation scheme, agency's award to lower-priced, lower-rated proposal is unobjectionable, where agency reasonably concluded that [REDACTED] percent price differential was not worth –marginal— differences in performance ratings so as to justify award to the higher-rated offeror. DECISION Specific Systems, Ltd. (SSL) protests the award of a contract to American Turbo Systems (ATS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F09603-02-R-70366, issued by the Department of the Air Force for roof-mounted air conditioner modules (RACM) that will be used to cool aircraft avionics systems while maintenance personnel work on aircraft. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued April 12, 2002 as a small business set-aside, provided for award of a fixed-price contract for 3 first-article RACM units and 240 production RACM units, with three yearly options for additional RACM production units. Award was to be made using –Technically Acceptable-Performance/Price Tradeoff— procedures. That is, the RFP provided that proposals would first be evaluated to determine if they were technically acceptable, and for those that were acceptable, tradeoffs would then be made between past performance and price, with past performance being –significantly more important than— price. RFP M-900(a). Under the technical acceptability factor, the RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated –to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Purchase Description [PD] for [the RACM] . . . and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks.— RFP M-900(b)(1). The PD was an attachment to the RFP and identified over 100 mandatory requirements for such things as materials, design and construction, performance, verification, and packaging of the RACM. With regard to the technical proposal requirements, the RFP required –[t]he following information [to] be provided [which] will be evaluated to determine acceptability in accordance with Section M-900— and listed 25 paragraphs of the PD, and instructed offerors that –[p]roposals shall describe the offeror's proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in [these 25 enumerated] paragraphs of the [PD].—[1] RFP L'900(d)(2). For those proposals found technically acceptable, the RFP stated that past performance would be assessed for relevance and confidence in the offeror's ability to accomplish the proposed effort, and that price would be computed by multiplying the number of required RACM units by the proposed prices. Four offerors, including SSL and ATS, responded to the RFP by the May 17 due date. The Air Force determined that discussions were necessary, and submitted to each offeror –Evaluation Notices— (EN) concerning weaknesses, deficiencies, and issues for clarification identified under the technical, past performance, and price factors. Offerors submitted their responses to the ENs and final proposal revisions by September 20. The agency evaluated proposals and EN responses, and determined that all four proposals were technically acceptable.