B-310667; B-310667.2, Silynx Communications, Inc., January 23, 2008

B-310667; B-310667.2, Silynx Communications, Inc., January 23, 2008 TITLE: B-310667; B-310667.2, Silynx Communications, Inc., January 23, 2008 BNUMBER: B-310667; B-310667.2 DATE: January 23, 2008 ******************************************************************* B-310667; B-310667.2, Silynx Communications, Inc., January 23, 2008 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: Silynx Communications, Inc. File: B-310667; B-310667.2 Date: January 23, 2008 David B. Dempsey, Esq., David S. Black, Esq., and Megan M. Mocho, Esq., Holland & Knight, LLP, for the protester. Len Rawicz, Esq., Mitchell S. Ettinger, Esq., and Elizabeth C. Billhimer, Esq., Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, for Nacre, AS, an intervenor. James L. Yohn, II, Esq., and Robert C. Peterson, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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 1. Protest that agency misevaluated technical proposals is denied where record shows that protester's product was reasonably determined technically unacceptable for failing to meet mandatory threshold specifications. 2. Agency reasonably made award on basis of initial proposals, without holding discussions, where solicitation advised offerors of agency's intent to make award without discussions. 3. Agency's price reasonableness determination was unobjectionable where it was based on historical information relating to cost of items being acquired; fact that protester offered a lower price for product determined to be technically unacceptable does not demonstrate that determination was unreasonable. 4. Protest that agency technical evaluator was biased and could not objectively evaluate protester's product is denied where protester presents no evidence to credibly support its assertion. DECISION Silynx Communications, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Nacre, AS under request for proposals (RFP) No. N65236-07-R-0139, issued by the Department of the Navy to acquire a quantity of combat radio headsets. Silynx maintains that the agency misevaluated proposals, improperly failed to engage in discussions, and exhibited bias in favor of the awardee. We deny the protest. The agency issued the RFP as a commercial item acquisition seeking to award a fixed-price contract for the headsets, which provide individuals in combat settings both hearing protection and hearing enhancement, to allow them to hear ambient noises in a combat setting and to engage in radio communications among the members of combat squadrons. The RFP included 149 mandatory performance, test and acceptance specifications; all had to be met by the proposed headsets in order for a firm's product to be considered for award. Offerors were advised that the agency would make award to the firm whose offer best conformed to the RFP's requirements, price and other solicitation requirements considered. The agency received proposals from Nacre and Silynx, both of which essentially listed, and indicated whether the proposed product met, the 149 specifications. Thereafter, the agency amended one of the specifications relating to the requirement for noise attenuation in blast environments, and also made a minor change to the solicitation's language relating to the basis for award. In response, Silynx submitted a proposal revision on September 24. Supplemental Agency Report (SAR), exh. 1. The agency reviewed the proposals and, rather than rely entirely on the offerors' representations, sought to verify that their proposed headsets in fact met all requirements. In this connection, the agency relied principally on a performance study prepared by the Department of the Air Force, dated August 2007, and a first article test report prepared by the U.S. Marine Corps, dated February 2007.[1] Based on its evaluation, the agency determined that Silynx's proposal failed to meet 5 of the 149 specifications. As relevant here, the agency found that Silynx's product did not meet specification [deleted], which required the proposed headsets to be [deleted], and did not meet specification [deleted], which required the headsets to provide [deleted]. Agency Report (AR), exh. 4, at 4-7.