B-299518; B-299518.3, Matthews Manufacturing, Inc., June 11, 2007

B-299518; B-299518.3, Matthews Manufacturing, Inc., June 11, 2007 TITLE: B-299518; B-299518.3, Matthews Manufacturing, Inc., June 11, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299518; B-299518.3 DATE: June 11, 2007 ***************************************************************** B-299518; B-299518.3, Matthews Manufacturing, Inc., June 11, 2007 Decision Matter of: Matthews Manufacturing, Inc. File: B-299518; B-299518.3 Date: June 11, 2007 Matt Alexander for the protester. Charles Morris, for Universal Marine Services, Inc., an intervenor. J. Stephen Brophy, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where solicitation for buoys gave predominant weight to technical factors as compared to price, agency's decision to award, based on the offeror's higher-priced proposal and demonstrated experience and capability in producing buoys identical to those being procured, was reasonable and in accord with the solicitation. DECISION Matthews Manufacturing, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Universal Marine Services, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSCG23-06-R-ECB018, by the United States Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, for the supply of steel ocean buoys. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on September 8, 2006, sought proposals for steel ocean buoys to be used as navigational aids to be fabricated in accordance with government provided specifications and drawings. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price, with economic price adjustments, requirements contract, for a base year with four 1-year options. The RFP provided for award on a "best-value" basis, considering the following evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance: manufacturing approach capability, relevant experience, quality control plan, price, and relevant past performance. RFP at 129. The manufacturing approach capability factor included the following equally weighted subfactors: manufacturing process, facilities and equipment, and manufacturing plan. Under the manufacturing process subfactor, the "[d]emonstrated manufacturing capability in terms of offeror's existing manufacturing processes and systems from start to completion of the finished buoy, or its detailed plan to obtain/develop the requisite manufacturing capability," would be evaluated. Under the facilities and equipment subfactor, the "[d]emonstrated existing capability in offeror's existing manufacturing facility including all sub assembly operations used to finish the buoy, or its detailed plan to obtain/develop the requisite manufacturing facilities [and the] [d]emonstrated existing capability of the offeror in all machine types for each operation performed, or its detailed plan to obtain/develop requisite capability in all machine types," would be evaluated. The manufacturing plan was to "demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the requirements and address each aspect of buoy construction in terms of existing manufacturing systems (processes), facilities and equipment, or its detailed plan to obtain/develop the requisite manufacturing systems (processes, facilities and equipment)." Id. The relevant experience factor was to evaluate "relevant experience in manufacturing items from standard specification documents such as aids to navigation or items of similar design or construction to those requested." RFP at 130. The quality control plan factor included five equally weighted subfactors: receiving and components, cutting room operations, assembly area operations, final inspections, and packaging, shipping and handling operations. Under the packaging, shipping and handling operations subfactor, the quality control plan was to "demonstrate [that] adequate shipping materials will be used and proper visual inspection of packages before shipment will be conducted to ensure proper structural integrity, sealing and labeling is accomplished without fail." Id. The relevant past performance factor included five equally weighted subfactors: product quality, timeliness, business practices, cost control, and customer satisfaction. Id. Four proposals, including Matthews's and Universal's, were received in response to the RFP by the October 25 closing date.