SSI Technology, Inc.

B-411585 Aug 26, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SSI Technology, Inc., (SSI), a veteran-owned small business (VOSB), of Madison Heights, Michigan, protests the Department of the Army's issuance of a task order to Ace Electronics, Inc. (Ace), of Metuchen, New Jersey, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W15QKN-15-R-0089, for W10 cables for the family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV). SSI challenges the agency's evaluation of its quotation as technically unacceptable. 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: SSI Technology, Inc. File: B-411585 Date: August 26, 2015 Daniel Strouse, Esq., Cohen Mohr LLP, for the protester. Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Joshua R. Gillerman, and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s technical evaluation is denied where record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION SSI Technology, Inc., (SSI), a veteran-owned small business (VOSB), of Madison Heights, Michigan, protests the Department of the Army’s issuance of a task order to Ace Electronics, Inc. (Ace), of Metuchen, New Jersey, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W15QKN-15-R-0089, for W10 cables for the family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV). SSI challenges the agency’s evaluation of its quotation as technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ was issued on April 20, 2015, to holders of a previously established blanket purchase agreement (BPA), including SSI and Ace. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order for the fabrication, packaging, and shipping of FMTV W10 cables to be used in the common remotely-operated weapon station (CROWS).[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab C-1, Evaluation Plan, at 1; Tab C-3, Statement of Work (SOW), at 1. The SOW indicated that, upon successful completion of first article testing and government approval, the contractor would be required to produce 100 cables per month until the final production quantity was met. AR, Tab C-3, SOW, at 2. The RFQ provided that the agency would make an award on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis. AR, Tab C-1, Evaluation Plan, at 1. The RFQ indicated that technical quotations would be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable based on whether the quotation met the minimum solicitation requirements. Id. The solicitation listed the minimum technical requirements as follows: (1) provide an explanation of the steps necessary to manufacture FMTV W10 cables and (2) provide a detailed explanation of the steps required to test FMTV W10 cables. Id. at 2. A quotation that failed to meet the minimum requirements would be rated unacceptable overall and would not be considered further. Id. The RFQ also noted that price would be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. Id. at 2. Additionally, the solicitation stated that the agency intended to evaluate quotations and make an award without discussion. Id. at 1. The Army received three quotations, including SSI’s and Ace’s. Contracting Officer (CO) Statement at 2. SSI’s quotation provided a description of the steps it planned to take to manufacture the FMTV W10 cables. Protest, Attach. A, SSI Quotation, at 3-5. SSI’s quotation also provided the following information regarding its plan to test the cable: “SSI will design and build a ‘W10 Cable Electrical Test Fixture’ using a Cirrus automated cable/harness tester to perform the electrical test . . . [t]he Cirrus automated tester is capable of performing all the tests . . . .” Id. at 6. The technical team evaluated SSI’s quotation and found that while the quotation demonstrated that the vendor had a firm understanding of the steps necessary to manufacture the FMTV W10 cable, the quotation did not contain sufficient detail to demonstrate how SSI would meet the requirement to test the cables. AR, Tab D, Technical Evaluation, at 1. Specifically, the evaluators concluded that SSI “ha[d] not provided a detailed explanation of the steps required to test this FMTV W10 Cable . . . [SSI] merely regurgitates in the [quotation] to ‘test cables to DWG 13047953 note 7,’ but does not fully explain how [it] will accomplish the objective of physically testing the cables.” Id. As a result, the technical team concluded that SSI’s quotation was technically unacceptable. Id. at 1. With regard to Ace’s quotation, the technical team determined that Ace provided an acceptable technical approach for manufacturing and testing the cable. Id.; AR at 5. Ace received the award as the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quotation.