Kaman Dayron, Inc., B-292997, January 15, 2004

B-292997 Jan 15, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Kaman Dayron, Inc. protests the award of contract to AMTEC Corporation by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Joint Munitions Command, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAA-09-03-R-0002, for M549A1 40-millimeter (mm) grenade fuzes. Kaman Dayron, the incumbent contractor, challenges the technical evaluation primarily on the basis that the agency unreasonably considered Kaman Dayron's experience and that of AMTEC to be equal. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-292997, Kaman Dayron, Inc., January 15, 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. Decision Matter of: File: Date: DECISION We sustain the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for 747,473 M549A1 grenade fuzes, with an evaluated 50 percent option for an additional 373,736 fuzes. The M549A1 fuze is a component of the 40-mm High Explosive Dual Purpose M430A1 cartridge (grenade) used in the MK-19 Grenade Machine Gun. Award was to be made to the responsible contractor whose offer was determined to be most advantageous to the government. The most advantageous proposal was to be determined in a –best value— evaluation based on four factors: (1) technical approach, including subfactors for technical and automated production capability, automated acceptance inspection equipment (AAIE) capability, technical data management, production problem investigation and resolution, and vendor control and requirements flow-down; (2) recent, relevant past performance, including subfactors for on-time deliveries and quality of performance; (3) price; and (4) small business utilization. Technical approach was slightly more important than past performance, and each was significantly more important than price, which was more important than small business utilization. The RFP further indicated that particular importance would be placed on the degree of similarity of offerors' experience and the items previously produced to the M549A1 fuze''distinguishing among identical, nearly identical, and similar experience''when rating proposals. Thus, with respect to the technical subfactor for technical and automated production capability, the solicitation required offerors to furnish documentation of experience in the use of high'volume production machinery needed to meet quality requirements and delivery dates; photographs of –any existing production equipment that is used or similar to what would be required to produce the M549A1 fuze—; –representative process flow diagrams of identical, nearly identical, or similar items for which the offeror has manufacturing capabilities—; and –technical information of the item produced (other than the M549A1fuze) revealing any similarity of it to the M549A1 fuze with respect to both assembly and function.— RFP L at 51. Likewise, with respect to the subfactor for AAIE capability, the solicitation required offerors to document –any existing AAIE in use or that [is] similar in complexity to what is required to perform inspection of the M549A1 fuze,— and furnish –technical information of the item being manufactured, if other than the M549A1 fuze, sufficient to show similarity of it to the M549A1 fuze with regards to assembly, function, and inspection requirements.— RFP L at 51-52. Further, the RFP defined relevant contracts for purposes of the past performance evaluation –as procuring the same or similar items, requiring the same or similar manufacturing processes, skills, and abilities.— RFP L at 53. The RFP provided that –[t]he Government reserves the right to determine whether an item is the same or similar and identical or nearly identical.— RFP L at 54; RFP M at 57. The RFP's focus on the degree of similarity among the items previously produced to the M549A1 fuze was mirrored in the agency's internal evaluation plan. In this regard, the source selection plan provided in pertinent part that an offeror's technical approach would be rated excellent where –[t]he offeror has demonstrated the experience and capability to manufacture and inspect the M549A1 Fuze or an item(s) nearly identical in assembly and functional complexity,— and that an offeror's technical approach would be rated as only good where –[t]he offeror has demonstrated the experience and capability to manufacture and inspect an item with similar assembly requirements to the M549A1 Fuze.— Source Selection Plan 8. Initial proposals were received from two offerors, AMTEC and Kaman Dayron. Kaman Dayron was the developer (in conjunction with the Army) and only manufacturer up to that time of the M549A1 fuze.