3M Scott Fire and Safety (FA8534-20-R-0006)

B-421025.2,B-421025.3 Jul 06, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Scott Technologies, Inc., d/b/a 3M Scott Fire and Safety, of Monroe, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to MSA Safety Sales, LLC, of Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8534-20-R-0006, issued by the Department of the Air Force for commercial safety masks and equipment. 3M argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and conducted discussions, and improperly made the selection decision. 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: 3M Scott Fire and Safety File: B-421025.2; B-421025.3 Date: July 6, 2023 Eric S. Crusius, Esq., Jeremy Burkhart, Esq., and Kelsey M. Hayes, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. Amy Laderberg O’Sullivan, Esq., Cherie J Owen, Esq., Michael E. Samuels, Esq., and Isaac D. Schabes, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for MSA Safety Sales, LLC, the intervenor. Col. Frank Yoon, Nicholas T. Iliff, Jr., Esq., and Maj. Erik T. Fuqua., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation, applicable procurement statutes and regulations, and the contents of the proposals. 2. Protest that the agency unequally conducted discussions is denied where the record shows that the discussions were reasonably tailored to the contents of the proposals. 3. Protest that the agency unreasonably made the selection decision is denied where the selection official made the determination based on an integrated assessment, properly elected not to conduct a tradeoff determination, and reasonably relied on evaluation reports and recommendations prepared by other agency officials. DECISION Scott Technologies, Inc., d/b/a 3M Scott Fire and Safety, of Monroe, North Carolina, protests the award of a contract to MSA Safety Sales, LLC, of Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8534‑20‑R‑0006, issued by the Department of the Air Force for commercial safety masks and equipment. 3M argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and conducted discussions, and improperly made the selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 13, 2020, the Air Force issued the RFP to procure commercial self-contained breathing apparatus airpaks (SCBA), commercial SCBA masks, chemical warfare component (CWC) masks, and supplied-air respirator (SAR) kits. Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, RFP at 9, 11.[1] This equipment provides emergency services responders and workers with quality compressed air during periods of exposure to hazardous environments (e.g., toxic atmospheres). Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. The SCBA is a portable system consisting of a suit-like apparatus, which is worn on the back of the user, and can be configured with the CWC mask to provide protection in a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) environment. AR, Tab 23, Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 2. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract to be performed over a 1‑year base period and four 1-year option periods. RFP at 11. Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering technical and price factors, with the technical factor being more important than price.[2] RFP at 82-83. When assessing proposals under the technical factor, the agency would assign both technical and technical risk ratings. RFP at 83. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the agency’s requirement. Id. at 84. The technical risk rating assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach may cause disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, increased government oversight, or unsuccessful performance.[3] Id. The technical and technical risk ratings were equally important. Id. at 83. The technical factor included four equally important subfactors: field evaluation; certifications and test data; CBRN CWC design approach; and, program production plan. RFP at 84. For the field evaluation, the RFP required offerors to provide four SCBA units, and a technical representative to demonstrate usage during testing and evaluation at multiple locations. Id. at 79-80; see also AR, Tab 16, RFP, amend. 4 at 14.