Avon Protection Systems, Inc.

B-411569.2 Nov 13, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Avon Protection Systems, Inc., of Belcamp, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Ocenco Inc., of Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N61331-13-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Command, for emergency escape breathing devices (EEBD). Avon challenges the Navy's evaluation of proposals and its best-value decision. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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:  Avon Protection Systems, Inc. File:  B-411569.2 Date:  November 13, 2015 Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Mary Pat Buckenmeyer, Esq., and Nicholas J. Surace, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. Kyle R. Jefcoat, Esq., Dean W. Baxtresser, Esq., and David R. Hazelton, Esq., Latham & Watkins LLP, for the intervenor. Raymond P. Oldach Jr., Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency improperly evaluated the protester’s proposal is denied where the record demonstrates that the proposal was reasonably evaluated under the solicitation’s evaluation factors. DECISION Avon Protection Systems, Inc., of Belcamp, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Ocenco Inc., of Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N61331-13-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Command, for emergency escape breathing devices (EEBD).  Avon challenges the Navy’s evaluation of proposals and its best-value decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND An EEBD is a self-contained emergency escape breathing apparatus used by Navy personnel to facilitate escaping when the atmosphere aboard Navy vessels has been classified as immediately dangerous to life or health as a result of shipboard fires.  See RFP at 63.  The RFP was issued on March 20, 2013, as a commercial item solicitation under the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15, and sought proposals to provide up to 97,550 EEBDs, up to 750 training units, and up to 250 EEBD instructional videos with training materials.[1]  The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite‑delivery, requirements contract for a base year and four 12-month options.  See RFP at 40. As relevant here, RFP section C.3.1.2., required an offeror’s proposed EEBD to be approved by the National Institute of Safety and Health (NIOSH) with a “Cap 1” capacity rating (which pertains to volume of breathing gas) and a shelf-life of not less than 15 years.  Id. at 65.  In this regard, the solicitation required NIOSH certification of an offeror’s EEBD device, as well as any third-party testing of the device, to be completed prior to proposal submission.  See RFP amend No. 0001, at 8; RFP amend No. 0002, at 3; RFP amend. No. 0004, at 2.  The solicitation also required all volumes of an offeror’s proposal to be packaged in a sealed container and delivered to the location specified in the RFP by the closing date.  See RFP at 56. The RFP provided for award on a best-value basis considering technical merit and price.  See RFP at 17.  The evaluation factors were:  (1) technical approach, compliance with the EEBD specification, (2) maintenance requirements, (3) quality assurance, (4) past performance, and (5) price.  Id. at 16-17.  The RFP, as initially issued, also included an evaluation factor for sample product and instruction video with training materials, but this factor was deleted by RFP amendment No. 0012, which was issued on April 14, 2015, after the Navy received initial proposals.  See RFP amend. No. 0012.  For evaluation purposes, factor 1 was the most important factor; factors 2, 3, and 4 were of equal importance; and the combination of the non-price factors were more important than price.  RFP at 17.  The RFP also advised, however, that the government reserved the right to conduct a tradeoff between technical and price factors, and that “[price] premiums in excess of 10% of the lowest acceptable offeror[’s] total evaluated price requires higher level approval, which [would] only be sought in extraordinary cases.”  See RFP at 17. Under the technical approach factor, the Navy was to consider an offeror’s approach to meeting the EEBD specifications, the hazardous materials requirements, and the EEBD warranty requirements.  Id. at 19.  Under the maintenance requirements factor, the agency was to evaluate an offeror’s requirements for maintaining its EEBD unit, including the preventive or corrective maintenance requirements.  Id.