B-311391, Eomax Corporation, June 23, 2008

B-311391 Jun 23, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Eomax Corporation protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to Maxa Beam Searchlights, Inc. d/b/a MaxaVision Technologies, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124Q-08-D-0808, for search cameras to be included in the Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program (CEDAP). Eomax challenges the agency's technical evaluation and resulting source selection. We deny the protest. View Decision B-311391, Eomax Corporation, June 23, 2008 Decision Matter of: Eomax Corporation File: B-311391 Date: June 23, 2008 Ken Smart for the protester. James H. Roberts, III, Esq., Van Scoyoc Kelly PLLC, for Maxa Beam Searchlights, an intervenor. Capt. R inah R. Shah, Department of the Army, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Evaluation of protester's technical proposal and award decision were unobjectionable where agency reasonably found weaknesses associated with firm's proposed search cameras based on inability to easily switch between sensor modes, size of the camera, proposed warranty, and higher price, that rendered its proposal other than the best value. DECISION Eomax Corporation protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to Maxa Beam Searchlights, Inc. d/b/a MaxaVision Technologies, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124Q-08-D-0808, for search cameras to be included in the Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program (CEDAP). Eomax challenges the agency's technical evaluation and resulting source selection. We deny the protest. The CEDAP program helps meet the equipment and training needs of smaller jurisdictions and communities by providing equipment to assist emergency responders in improving their capabilities in the areas of prevention and detection, regional response and mutual aid, and interoperable communications. The RFP sought ruggedized, handheld, search camera kits. Each ultra-light camera was to have a telescoping pole and remotely articulated arm to determine the extent of fire and smoke –from difficult or impossible to reach areas (such as ceiling voids) without the initial need for ladders.— RFP at 2. The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a requirements contract for a base year with 1 option year for up to a maximum of 75 units per year. Proposals were to be evaluated on a –best value— basis in two phases. Phase I was evaluated on a –go or no-go— basis using the following criteria: whether (1) the proposal addressed the RFP equipment; (2) the vendor/equipment were rated successful or higher by references; (3) the vendor provided verifiable, publicly available reports from an independent laboratory verifying performance characteristics; (4) the proposed pricing was within the competitive range; (5) the vendor's production capability was adequate; and (6) the vendor proposed training. If a proposal was rated as –go,— it was evaluated under Phase II based on a demonstration of the offerors' proposed systems before a panel of subject matter experts (SME). The Phase II evaluation included the following criteria of equal importance: (1) overall technical description and capabilities; (2) potential contribution and relevance to CEDAP; (3) estimated yearly operating costs to be expected by the user; (4) equipment warranty, technical support, equipment manual/CD/DVD, and installation/setup support; (5) type and quality of training provided; and (6) production capability/quantity and proposed delivery schedule. These criteria were evaluated on a color-coded basis--blue (exceptional), green (acceptable), yellow (marginal), and red (unacceptable). The agency also evaluated overall pricing of the equipment, with the technical factors combined considered approximately equal to price. Five offerors (including Eomax and MaxaVision) submitted proposals.[1] Both Eomax's and MaxaVision's proposed equipment having been evaluated as –go— under Phase I, each offeror then demonstrated its equipment. The SMEs reached the following consensus ratings for Eomax's and MaxaVision's proposals: Eomax MaxaVision 1. Overall Technical Value Exceptional Exceptional 2. Potential Contribution to CEDAP Acceptable Exceptional 3. Estimated Operating Cost Exceptional Exceptional 4. Equipment Warranty Marginal Marginal 5. Training Acceptable Acceptable 6. Production Capability Exceptional Exceptional Overall Rating Acceptable Exceptional Not only was MaxaVision's proposal rated exceptional, versus the acceptable rating for Eomax's, but in addition, the total price of MaxaVision's proposal was approximately one-half that of Eomax's.