B-298889, U.S. Dynamics Corporation, December 19, 2006

B-298889 Dec 19, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights U.S. Dynamics Corporation (USDC) protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to U.S. Technologies, Inc. (USTI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8217-06-R-76466 for a quantity of exciter radios, a part used in radar transmitters. USDC contends that the agency improperly evaluated the awardee's price proposal and, thus, made a flawed award decision. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298889, U.S. Dynamics Corporation, December 19, 2006 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: U.S. Dynamics Corporation File: B-298889 Date: December 19, 2006 Henry L. Goldberg, Esq., Norman Steiger, Esq., and Brian P. Craig, Esq., Goldberg & Connolly, for the protester. Robert G. Fryling, Esq., and Brian S. Gocial, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for U.S. Technologies, Inc., an intervenor. Gary R. Allen, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's evaluation of awardee's price proposal is denied where the record supports the agency's determination that awardee's prices were fair and reasonable. DECISION U.S. Dynamics Corporation (USDC) protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to U.S. Technologies, Inc. (USTI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8217-06-R-76466 for a quantity of exciter radios, a part used in radar transmitters. USDC contends that the agency improperly evaluated the awardee's price proposal and, thus, made a flawed award decision. We deny the protest. The RFP, as amended, provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for the exciter radios, and the competition was limited to qualified sources known to have the required experience and capability. RFP amend. 3, at 3. Offerors were advised that the agency would –utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection procedure— to arrive at a –best value— award decision by –obtaining the lowest evaluated price.— RFP amend. 2, add., sect. M-900(a). The application of this technique involved determining the acceptability of each offeror's proposal by ascertaining whether the offeror –has been notified by the government that they are considered a qualified source.— Id., sect. M-900(b)(1). There is no issue in this protest regarding the evaluation of USTI's proposal as technically acceptable. Rather, this protest challenges the evaluation of USTI's proposal under the price factor. Schedule B of the RFP called for fixed prices to produce a first article unit, test report and test plan data, a minimum production quantity of three and a maximum production quantity of six units after approval of the first article. RFP amend. 3, at 3-7. The RFP also stated that: The price will be evaluated using the lowest price. [T]his solicitation is for a minimum quantity of 4 each, including first article, and a maximum quantity of 7 each. The evaluation for award will be made on a total price based on a quantity of 4, 5, 6, or 7--example: If a total quantity of 4 is selected for award the evaluation would be a First Article price, Data Price, and Production unit price multiplied by the quantity of 3. These three prices . . . would be summed to provide the lowest evaluated price for the quantity of 4 each. The [contracting officer] will make a unilateral decision on which quantity will be awarded. RFP amend. 2, add., attach. 1, Price Evaluation. In addition, the solicitation also stated as follows: In accordance with FAR [Federal Acquisition Regulation] 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), information other than costs and pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. Information shall be provided in accordance with FAR 15.403-5. If, after receipt of proposals, the CO [Contracting Officer] determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offer shall be required to submit costs or pricing data. RFP amend. 2, add., sect. L-900(c)(1). Four firms, including USDC and USTI, submitted proposals. Of these, only USDC and USTI were deemed qualified sources. RFP amend. 3, at 3; Agency Report (AR), exh. 13, Final Price Competition Memorandum, at 7. The agency thus evaluated both USDC's and USTI's proposals as technically acceptable and included those proposals in the competitive range. The agency conducted discussions with each competitive range offeror by issuing evalution notices to address the delivery schedule for the production units. Offerors were required to respond to the written discussion and clarification questions and were then given an opportunity to submit final revised proposals.