Scot, Inc., B-295569; B-295569.2, March 10, 2005

Scot, Inc., B-295569; B-295569.2, March 10, 2005 TITLE: Scot, Inc., B-295569; B-295569.2, March 10, 2005 BNUMBER: B-295569; B-295569.2 DATE: March 10, 2005 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Scot, Inc. File: B-295569; B-295569.2 Date: March 10, 2005 Brian W. Craver, Esq., Person & Craver, for the protester. Frederick W. Claybrook, Jr., Esq., and Amy E. Laderberg, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for Gentex Corporation, an intervenor. Lenore K. Strakowsky, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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. Protest that agency did not give sufficient weight to protester's superior warranty in selecting low-priced proposal for award based on a cost/technical tradeoff is denied, where agency reasonably determined in accordance with the solicitation that the warranty was not worth a price premium. 2. Agency reasonably considered awardee's past performance to be relevant, even though it was on lower-priced contracts than protester's relevant contracts, where solicitation did not state that contract value was a consideration in determining relevance. 3. Protest that awardee's price is unbalanced is denied, where the agency reasonably considered the risk to the government associated with the offerors' different pricing strategies, and properly determined that the government would pay less under the awardee's pricing approach than with the protester's and that the cost risk entailed in the awardee's approach was acceptable. 4. Agency did not err in accepting expired offer for award without reopening negotiations where, despite the protester's assertion that it can now offer a lower price, the acceptance of the expired offer did not prejudice the competitive system or provide the awardee with an unfair competitive advantage. DECISION Scot, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Gentex Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68335-03-R-0141, issued by the Department of the Navy for oxygen mask, regulator, helmet, and communications test sets. Scot challenges the evaluation of proposals and the acceptance of Gentex's expired offer. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a minimum quantity of 1 test set and a maximum quantity of 251 test sets to be purchased over a 5-year period, with a maximum quantity of 50 test sets to be purchased in any calendar year. Each test set consisted of a portable oxygen regulator, mask, helmet, and communications test set that was to be capable of testing all personnel-mounted aviator's breathing oxygen regulators, masks, helmets, and communications in the Navy inventory. The contractor selected for award was to provide 1 first article test unit to the Navy for testing within 120 days of award, with 10A production units to follow within 90A days of first article approval, and the remaining production units to be delivered within 6 months of first article approval as specified in delivery orders; training was also to be provided within 90 days of first article approval. The RFP contained a number of provisions relating to the acquisition of commercial items. For example, offerors were required to "provide a narrative, discussing in detail the warranty service [to be provided] . . . includ[ing] length of warranty service and any other relevant information as specified in the solicitation," RFP attach. 3, Instructions to Offerors, at 4, and submit any standard warranty normally offered in a similar commercial sale. RFP at 39. Each offeror was also required to "hold the prices in its offer firm for 30 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers, unless another time period is specified in an addendum to the solicitation." RFP at 17. The firms were further instructed to provide the history of the proposed test unit (i.e., how long the item had been designed, modified, or produced in the current configuration, and the quantity produced) as part of its "commercial item description." RFP attach. 3, Instructions to Offerors, at 3. The RFP provided for award on a "best value" basis considering (in descending order of importance) technical, past performance, and price. The technical factor consisted of the technical approach, logistics, and management subfactors. The technical approach and logistics subfactors were equally weighted, and combined were more important than the management subfactor. Each of these technical subfactors had sub-subfactors listed in descending order of importance. The logistics subfactor had five sub-subfactors; of relevance to this protest, the fourth listed one was the warranty plan.