Specmat Technologies, Inc.

B-414331.5 Nov 29, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Specmat Technologies, Inc., located in Rockford, Tennessee, protests the award of a contract to Signal Engineering, Inc., located in San Diego, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8606-16-R-6397 issued by the Department of the Air Force for personnel locator beacons (PLB). Specmat challenges the agency's evaluation of Signal's past performance and price. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Specmat Technologies, Inc. File:  B-414331.5 Date:  November 29, 2017 Isaias Alba, IV, Esq., Julia Di Vito, Esq., Kathryn M. Kelley, Esq., and Samuel S. Finnerty, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Paul F. Khoury, Esq., and George E. Petel, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Signal Engineering, Inc., the intervenor. Lieutenant Colonel Kevin P. Stiens, and Jason R. Smith, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. K. Nicole Willems, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest of past performance evaluation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and thoroughly documented. 2.  Protest that agency failed to assess the awardee's proposal for risk following a reduction in the awardee's proposed price is denied where the solicitation did not require such an analysis. 3.  Protest that the agency failed to conduct a price realism analysis is denied where the solicitation contemplated the award of a contract on a fixed-price basis, the solicitation did not contain an express price realism provision, and the solicitation lacked the types of express statements that would support a conclusion that a price realism analysis was contemplated. DECISION Specmat Technologies, Inc., located in Rockford, Tennessee, protests the award of a contract to Signal Engineering, Inc., located in San Diego, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8606-16-R-6397 issued by the Department of the Air Force for personnel locator beacons (PLB).  Specmat challenges the agency's evaluation of Signal's past performance and price. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was issued on March 24, 2016, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a total of 14,616 PLBs based on technical, past performance, and price factors. [1]  RFP at 85.  The solicitation provided for award to the responsible offeror with (1) acceptable technical capability, (2) low or moderate technical risk, (3) acceptable past performance, and (4) the lowest value adjusted total evaluated price (VATEP). [2]  Id. As relevant here, the RFP provided that each proposal would be rated as acceptable or unacceptable under the past performance factor based on the offeror's recent and relevant record of performance in supplying locator beacons and similar devices.[3]  Id. at 93.  For each past performance effort reviewed, the RFP provided that the quality of the work performed would be assessed by taking into account all available information, regardless of its source.[4]  Id.The quality assessment could result in positive or adverse findings.[5]  Id.For adverse information identified, evaluators would consider the number and severity of problems, mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that resulted in sustained improvements.  Id. With regard to price, the RFP advised offerors that price proposals would be evaluated for reasonableness, unbalanced pricing, and VATEP.  Id. at 95.  The RFP also advised that offerors whose prices were determined to be unreasonable might not be considered for award, and an offer might be rejected if the contracting officer determined unbalanced pricing posed an unacceptable risk to the government.  Id. The agency received three proposals in response to the RFP, including proposals submitted by Signal and Specmat.  Combined Memorandum of Law and Contracting Officer's Statement of Fact (MOL/COSF) at 4.  After conducting discussions with the offerors, the agency requested and received final proposal revisions (FPR) from the offerors on January 3, 2017.  Id. at 10.  The agency evaluated the FPRs and selected Specmat for award.  Id.  Subsequently, the unsuccessful offerors filed protests with our Office challenging the award to Specmat, and the agency responded by taking corrective action.  Id.  We dismissed those protests as academic on February 23.  See Signal Engineering, Inc., B-414331, Feb. 23, 2017 (unpublished decision); ACR Electronics, Inc., B-414331.2, Feb.