HDL Research Lab, Inc., B-294959, December 21, 2004

B-294959 Dec 21, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights HDL Research Lab, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Custom Manufacturing &Engineering, Inc. (CME) under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15P7T-04-R-C006, issued by the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) for tactical power supplies (TPS). HDL principally challenges the evaluation of its proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision B-294959, HDL Research Lab, Inc., December 21, 2004 Decision Matter of: HDL Research Lab, Inc. File: B-294959 Date: December 21, 2004 Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., and Theodore M. Bailey, Esq., Bailey & Bailey, P.C., for the protester. Capt. Victor G. Vogel and John J. Reynolds, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where award was made on the basis of initial proposals and agency reasonably found that protesters proposal contained numerous informational deficiencies and weaknesses, agency reasonably excluded proposal from consideration for award. DECISION HDL Research Lab, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Custom Manufacturing &Engineering, Inc. (CME) under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15P7T-04-R-C006, issued by the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) for tactical power supplies (TPS). HDL principally challenges the evaluation of its proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals for new designs of the TPS (part Nos. PP-2953D/U and PP6224C/U) to replace the existing TPS (part No. PP-6224B/U), used in support of SINCGARS radios, Patriot missiles, and various helicopters. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract. Offerors were to furnish technical and management proposals detailing their designs, along with first article testing (FAT) plans in accordance with detailed instructions in RFP section L. Proposals were to be evaluated under four factors, listed in descending order of importance (with related subfactors)--technical (design and reliability test program); management (contractor logistics support (CLS )/warranty program, facilities, pre-production and FAT schedule, and quality system); performance risk; and price. To be considered for award, a proposal had to be rated not less than acceptable in every subfactor. RFP M.A. Award was to be made on a best value basis, without discussions. Id. ; RFP L.2 at 63 (incorporating by reference Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.215-1(f)(4)). Nine offerors, including HDL and CME, submitted proposals. The source selection evaluation board found that only CMEs proposal was acceptable. It rated HDLs proposal unacceptable under the technical factor, susceptible to being made acceptable under the management factor, and low under the proposal risk factor. No discussions were conducted with the offerors. After reviewing the evaluation reports, including the associated strengths and weaknesses of the proposals, the source selection authority (SSA) determined that CMEs proposal was the best value and selected it for award. After receiving a debriefing, HDL filed this protest. HDL asserts that every deficiency and weakness identified by the evaluators was either mistaken, not related to the contract requirements, or otherwise unreasonable. In reviewing a protest of an agencys proposal evaluation, our review is confined to a determination of whether the agency acted reasonably and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. United Def. LP , B286925.3 et al. , Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD 75 at 10-11. A protestors mere disagreement with the agencys judgment is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably. Command Mgmt. Servs., Inc. , B292893.2, June 30, 2004, 2004 CPD 168 at 3. We have reviewed all of HDLs challenges to the evaluation and find that none has merit. We address what we view as HDLs primary arguments below. In evaluating HDLs proposal, the evaluators found seven weaknesses and eight deficiencies, including five deficiencies under the design subfactor. The deficiencies, and many of the weaknesses, were principally based on the firms failure to satisfy various informational requirements in its proposal. For example, despite the RFPs requirement for detailed information, HDLs proposal lacked any information on its parts obsolescence program; did not address the required stacking requirement; did not address expedited returns; and did not make clear its maximum/available facilities production capacity or identify the labor force necessary for support of full production. [1] HDL asserts that there was no reasonable basis for downgrading its proposal for these reasons, because the information in question either was not required by the RFP or was in fact provided.