USIA Underwater Equipment Sales Corporation, B-292827.2, January 30, 2004

B-292827.2 Jan 30, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protester's proposal was properly rejected where its sample fabric failed a "pass/fail" test conducted by a certified and accredited laboratory. The RFP was to procure "[c]ommercial off the shelf [MASS. The technical evaluation was to done in two parts: (1) a preliminary laboratory evaluation and (2) a full technical proposal evaluation. That that preliminary evaluation was on a "pass/fail" basis against seven specifically stated "pass/fail" standards. The product samples were required to be delivered directly to the U.S. Which was to be performed on the two linear yards of material. Among the standards was the requirement that the MASS material have abrasion at not less than 7500 cycles. View Decision USIA Underwater Equipment Sales Corporation, B-292827.2, January 30, 2004 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION USIA Underwater Equipment Sales Corporation protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. USZA22-03-R-0035, issued by the United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM), MacDill Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, for maritime assault suit systems (MASS). We deny the protest. The RFP was to procure "[c]ommercial off the shelf [MASS,] consisting of an over-garment with neck ring, repair kit and user manual, which can be used as a combat suit in maritime, terrestrial, airborne, shipboard, and transitional environments by the U.S. Navy," under a 5-year, fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. RFP at 12. The RFP provided that award would be made on a best-value basis, considering technical, price, and past performance, listed in descending order of importance. The technical evaluation was to done in two parts: (1) a preliminary laboratory evaluation and (2) a full technical proposal evaluation. The RFP stated that the "proposed/submitted materials should meet minimum Preliminary Laboratory Evaluation requirements . . . in order to be considered for the Full Technical Proposal Evaluation and thus the award"; that that preliminary evaluation was on a "pass/fail" basis against seven specifically stated "pass/fail" standards; and that "[t]hose offerors not passing all the standards may be eliminated from further consideration." RFP at 17-18. The RFP required each offeror to provide four product samples (small, medium, large, and extra large) and two linear yards of the material used in the manufacture of its MASS. The product samples were required to be delivered directly to the U.S. Natick Soldier Center, Massachusetts (rather than MacDill AFB) for testing by the Textile Performance Testing Facility. The preliminary evaluation, which was to be performed on the two linear yards of material, required the material to pass seven "pass/fail" standards listed in the RFP. Among the standards was the requirement that the MASS material have abrasion at not less than 7500 cycles, as tested in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Testing Method No. D 3884. /1/ Seven proposals, including USIA's, were submitted in response to the RFP. Five of the proposals went through the preliminary evaluation. /2/ USIA submitted product samples, including the "Thor-Tex" fabric material (manufactured by Brookwood Laminating) used in the manufacture of its MASS. Three of the five proposals had product samples, which included material made of Black Laminate and Gore Best (WKAX143604E), and the remaining proposal included samples and material made of another product. The record evidences that the Textile Performance Testing Facility at Natick conducted the preliminary evaluation of offerors' MASS material in accordance with the testing methods specified in the RFP. /3/ Because several proposals offered material manufactured by the same manufacturer referencing the same product number, only one of these offerors' samples was tested. This was the only material that passed all of the "pass/fail" standards, and the proposals offering this material were the only ones permitted to undergo the full technical proposal evaluation. The MASS material submitted by USIA passed all the standards except abrasion. USIA's fabric failed at 3300 cycles, short of 7500 cycles required by the ASTM test. On October 16, SOCOM notified USIA that its proposal had been rejected because its material did not meet the abrasion requirement. This protest followed. The gravamen of USIA's protest is that SOCOM improperly found that its material failed to meet the abrasion requirements.