B-311453; B-311453.2, L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc., July 14, 2008

B-311453; B-311453.2, L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc., July 14, 2008 TITLE: B-311453; B-311453.2, L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc., July 14, 2008 BNUMBER: B-311453; B-311453.2 DATE: July 14, 2008 ******************************************************************** B-311453; B-311453.2, L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc., July 14, 2008 Decision Matter of: L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc. File: B-311453; B-311453.2 Date: July 14, 2008 W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq., Daniel E. Chudd, Esq., and Damien C. Specht, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for the protester. Brian E. Toland, Esq., and Frank V. DiNicola, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester's challenge to the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range based on the failure of its bid sample during testing to satisfy an "essential criteria" is denied, where the solicitation advised offerors that the failure to satisfy an "essential criteria" would result in elimination of the proposal from the competition, the agency's testing method was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation instructions, and the protester's complaint about the test failure was related to its inadequately written proposal. DECISION L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-07-R-0428, issued by the U.S. Army Materiel Command for "Close Combat Optics" to be used with M16A2 rifles. L-3 asserts that the agency performed flawed testing on its proposed sight and mount and improperly rejected its proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP sought "Close Combat Optics," that is, optical sights with mounts, to be used as fire control devices on M16A2 rifles, M16A4 rifles, and M4 carbines. RFP sect. C.2. These systems were to be procured through award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a 5-year base period with two 1-year option periods. Id. sect. B. The RFP instructed each offeror to submit a written proposal, as well as a bid sample that would be tested against numerous criteria described in the solicitation. The solicitation provided for award on a "best value" basis, considering the evaluation factors of bid sample, quality system, equipment/production, price, performance risk, and small disadvantaged business participation. With regard to the bid sample factor, which was the most important factor, offerors were advised that the bid samples first would be tested against 15 "essential criteria," each of which would be rated on a "pass/fail" basis, and only samples that passed all of the "essential criteria" would be tested against 7 additional "rated criteria." Id. sect. M para. B. In this regard, section M of the RFP stated in three places language essentially identical to the following: A failure in any one or more of the essential criteria as stated shall be cause for elimination from further consideration for award and [the] offeror[']s submission will not be further evaluated. Id. sect. M paras. A, C.1.0, C.1.1. At issue in this protest is the evaluation of optical sights for the M16A2 rifles. In response to the solicitation, seven proposals and bid samples from four offerors were submitted for the M16A2 rifles. With the bid samples, offerors were required to submit commercial off-the-shelf manuals, each of which included mounting instructions. RFP sect. L; Mounting Instructions. Six of the samples, including L-3's, failed the "endurance-live fire" test, which was one of the "essential criteria."[1] This test required that bid samples be mounted on the M16A2 rifle, withstand a 6,000 round endurance firing with no physical damage, and maintain a "zero within 1 Gunner's mil upon completion of [the] endurance test." Id. sect. M para. C.1.1.10. Based on this failure, the agency determined that L-3's sample was unacceptable and eliminated L-3's proposal from the competition. This protest followed. L-3 contends that the agency's endurance-live fire test was flawed. In this regard, the protester asserts that the only reason its optical sight sample failed the endurance-live fire test was because the agency failed to properly secure the locking nut that tightens the mount to the weapon. L-3 contends that the agency improperly hand-tightened the nut when it should have used a tool, such as a hex key, to secure the locking nut before conducting the test.