B-295126.4, Engineered Electric Company d/b/a DRS Fermont, June 14, 2007

B-295126.4 Jun 14, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Engineered Electric Company d/b/a/ DRS Fermont (DRS) protests the terms of solicitation No. W15P7T-04-R-A001, issued by the U.S. Army Materiel Command for tactical quiet generator sets and military standard generator sets. DRS argues that the agency improperly relaxed the solicitation's fuel efficiency standards. We deny the protest. View Decision B-295126.4, Engineered Electric Company d/b/a DRS Fermont, June 14, 2007 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: Engineered Electric Company d/b/a DRS Fermont File: B-295126.4 Date: June 14, 2007 David Z. Bodenheimer, Esq., Daniel R. Forman, Esq., and Dane C. Swanson, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. David T. Ralston, Esq., Philip A. Nacke, Esq., and Frank S. Murray, Esq., Foley & Lardner LLP, for Onan Corporation d/b/a Cummins Power Generation, an intervenor. Brian E. Toland, Esq., Frank V. DiNicola, Esq., and William J. Kampo, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly relaxed specification for fuel efficiency in acquisition of mobile generators is denied where agency relaxed specification based on determination that no offerors were able to meet prior, more stringent requirements; fact that protester claims now to be able to meet more stringent specification does not require that agency use more stringent specification, since relaxed specification meets agency's needs and enhances competition. DECISION Engineered Electric Company d/b/a/ DRS Fermont (DRS) protests the terms of solicitation No. W15P7T-04-R-A001, issued by the U.S. Army Materiel Command for tactical quiet generator sets and military standard generator sets. DRS argues that the agency improperly relaxed the solicitation's fuel efficiency standards. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation contemplated the award of up to three indefinite-delivery, indefinite'quantity contracts to design, build, and furnish to the Army a new set of generators (variously sized and configured, and ranging from 5 to 60 kilowatts (kW)). The RFP contemplated performance in three phases. During phase I, the contractors were to develop prototype generators, complete a maintenance demonstration, conduct limited testing, and provide limited logistics data. At the conclusion of phase I, the solicitation and resulting contracts provided that the agency will perform a –downselect— among the phase I contractors, awarding a delivery order for the remaining phases to a single contractor. During phase II, the contractor will engage in further developmental and operational testing, perform a logistics demonstration, and develop additional logistics data. During phase III, the contractor will engage in production of the generators and associated documentation (such as technical manuals). This downselect is the subject of this protest. In 2004, the agency awarded two phase I contracts, one to the protester and one to Onan Corporation.[1] When performance of phase I was sufficiently complete, the agency solicited proposals from the two contractors to select a single concern to perform phases II and III. After receiving and evaluating those proposals, the agency established a competitive range comprised of Onan's proposal, and DRS filed a protest with our Office complaining that its proposal improperly had been excluded from the competitive range. In response, the agency advised that it would include DRS in the competitive range; we therefore dismissed DRS's protest. (B'295126.2, B'295126.3, Aug. 26, 2006.) Subsequent to including DRS in the competitive range, the agency issued a solicitation amendment that relaxed the specifications relating to the generators' fuel efficiency. That amendment is the subject of the current protest. The firms' contracts, at clause H-13, provide for the procedures and evaluation criteria to be followed in the agency's downselect decision. That clause provides that the agency will award the phase II and III work to the contractor submitting the proposal deemed to offer the –best value— to the government, considering cost/price and the following non-cost/price factors: technical, integrated logistics support (ILS), and small business participation plan. The technical factor (which includes several subfactors) is slightly more important than ILS (which also includes subfactors), which is slightly more important than cost/price, which is slightly more important than small business participation plan.