INFICON, Inc

B-410502 Jan 05, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights INFICON, Inc. (INFICON), of East Syracuse, New York, protests the award of a contract to Aerowing, of Las Vegas, Nevada, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8517-14-R-31684 issued by the Department of the Air Force for hydrogen leak detectors. INFICON argues that the awardee's proposed product did not meet the requirements of the solicitation. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: INFICON, Inc File: B-410502 Date: January 5, 2015 James E. McBride, INFICON, Inc., for the protester. Bertrand Carret-Troncy, Aerowing, for the intervenor. John E. Pettit, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Brent Burris, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that awardee’s proposed product was technically unacceptable for failing to meet required technical specifications is denied where protester’s challenge is based on an unreasonable interpretation of the solicitation’s specifications. DECISION INFICON, Inc. (INFICON), of East Syracuse, New York, protests the award of a contract to Aerowing, of Las Vegas, Nevada, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8517‑14‑R‑31684 issued by the Department of the Air Force for hydrogen leak detectors. INFICON argues that the awardee’s proposed product did not meet the requirements of the solicitation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on April 9, 2014, anticipated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract with a one-year base period and four, one-year options. Contracting Officer Statement of Facts (CO Statement) at 1-2. The solicitation sought hydrogen leak detectors, to include first production testing, as well as technical data requirements and familiarization and orientation training for the devices.[1] Id. at 1. The solicitation provided for award on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis. RFP at 44-45. As relevant to this protest, in order to be rated technically acceptable, offerors had to clearly demonstrate that their proposed product met each requirement set forth in an included Commercial Item Description (CID). Id. at 45; Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, CID, July 30, 2010. The agency received timely proposals from three offerors, including INFICON and Aerowing. CO Statement at 5. Following discussions, the agency received and evaluated the offerors’ final proposal revisions. Id. at 5-7. All three offerors were rated technically acceptable, with Aerowing having the lowest evaluated price and INFICON having the second-lowest evaluated price. Id. at 6-7; AR, Exh. 30, Source Selection Decision Document. In accordance with the terms of the solicitation, the Air Force made award to Aerowing as the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror. Id. On September 17, 2014, the agency notified offerors that award had been made to Aerowing. Protest at 2. INFICON timely filed the subject protest with this Office on September 29. DISCUSSION INFICON argues that the award to Aerowing was improper because the hydrogen leak detector proposed by Aerowing does not meet the mandatory technical specifications set forth in the CID. Specifically, the protester contends that the awardee’s product cannot function as intended if used inside a fuel tank, which the protester argues the CID required. Protest at 2-3. INFICON also asserts that the awardee’s product does not meet the CID specification requiring that the hydrogen leak detector be designed to prevent the intrusion of water and sand into critical operating components. Id. at 3. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the protest.[2] In support of its argument that Aerowing’s proposed hydrogen leak detector does not meet the specifications of the CID, the protester asserts that the device cannot detect hydrogen at the required level of 1.0 parts per million when used inside a fuel tank. Protest at 3. The protester also asserts that Aerowing’s product cannot withstand direct contact with corrosive fluids, to which it would be exposed when used inside a fuel tank. Id. INFICON acknowledges that the crux of its argument is that the solicitation required hydrogen leak detectors that could be used inside fuel tanks, and that the awardee’s product cannot be used inside a fuel tank. INFICON does not challenge the ability of Aerowing’s product to function as required if used to detect leaks from the outside of a fuel tank. Protester’s Comments at 1-4.