B-297321; B-297321.2, Laerdal Medical Corporation, December 23, 2005

B-297321; B-297321.2, Laerdal Medical Corporation, December 23, 2005 TITLE: B-297321; B-297321.2, Laerdal Medical Corporation, December 23, 2005 BNUMBER: B-297321; B-297321.2 DATE: December 23, 2005 ******************************************************************** B-297321; B-297321.2, Laerdal Medical Corporation, December 23, 2005 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: Laerdal Medical Corporation File: B-297321; B-297321.2 Date: December 23, 2005 Craig P. Murphy, Esq., and John D. Holden, Esq., Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, for the protester. Kathleen E. Karelis, Esq., W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., and David B. Robbins, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for Medical Education Technologies, Inc., an intervenor. Duncan Butts, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation of offerors' technical proposals is denied where record shows that agency's evaluation was reasonable. DECISION Laerdal Medical Corporation protests the award of a contract to Medical Education Technologies, Inc. (METI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N61339-05-R-0119, issued by the Department of the Navy for medical simulator training devices. Laerdal challenges the Navy's evaluation of the offerors' technical proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The combined synopsis/solicitation was posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website on August 16, 2005. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a base year and three option periods. As relevant here, the RFP required the following medical training devices: contract line item number (CLIN) 0001--breathe/bleed simulator[1] and CLIN 0003--human-weighted mannequin trainer. The RFP required offerors to include in their proposals a technical description of the items being offered in sufficient detail to enable the agency to determine compliance with the requirements in the SOW. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RFP at 6. Part II of the RFP also contained the following: The offeror shall complete the Requirements Checklist(s) (Attachment 2) which clearly demonstrates how their product meets the requisite requirements. Offerors shall identify in the notes section of the Requirements Checklist(s), the page number of the offer that demonstrates how their product(s) meet the Government requirement. Failure to meet the Government stated requirement is a deficiency, which may render an offeror ineligible for award. Offerors were advised that the agency intended to award up to two ID/IQ contracts without discussions. The RFP provided for a two-step evaluation approach. First, the agency would evaluate technical proposals on a past/fail basis. Second, for those offerors whose proposals were found technically acceptable, the agency would then evaluate the past performance of these offerors and perform a trade-off between the competing offerors on the basis of past performance and price, with past performance being significantly more important than price. Laerdal and METI submitted proposals. As required, METI's requirements checklist identified the pages in METI's proposal where the specific requirements were addressed. Based on its evaluation of METI's proposal, the agency concluded that METI's proposal met all of the requirements listed on the checklist. In contrast, on its checklist form, Laerdal did not reference the specific pages in its proposal where the company showed compliance with the requirements. The agency reviewed Laerdal's technical proposal and concluded that Laerdal failed to address certain requirements under CLINs 0001 and 0003. To ensure that the agency had not inadvertently missed a relevant technical description in Laerdal's proposal, on September 12, Laerdal was asked to provide the exact section and page numbers in its proposal for the requirements that the evaluators determined had not been met by Laerdal. The agency sought information for the following four items: 1. The SOW paragraph 3.1.3 requires "needle decompression sites shall allow multiple punctures with a minimum of ten (10) punctures at each site prior to the requiring replacements parts." Please indicate where you have addressed this requirement in your proposal, specifically by section and page number. 2.