B-168366, JAN. 16, 1970
Highlights
WHERE PROTESTING OFFEROR WAS ONLY SLIGHTLY LOWER IN NUMERICAL POINT SYSTEM EVALUATION THAN SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR ON BASIS OF ESTABLISHED CRITERIA BUT ON BASIS OF PREAWARD SURVEY WAS FOUND TO HAVE ABILITY TO MEET REQUIRED SCHEDULE. DETERMINATION IS NOT SUBJECT TO QUESTION. THE PROTOTYPE AND SPARK PLUGS WERE FOR GOVERNMENT ENDURANCE TESTING OF THE SYSTEM. COST" A THREE-MAN EVALUATION COMMITTEE WAS ESTABLISHED TO TECHNICALLY EVALUATE THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED. TWELVE PROPOSALS WERE SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE SOLICITATION. INITIAL EVALUATION WAS MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE COST FACTOR AND ESTABLISHED TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY OF THREE OF THE TWELVE PROPOSALS IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER OF PREFERENCE: AMERICAN BOSCH PRESTOLITE COMPANY SILICON SYSTEMS.
B-168366, JAN. 16, 1970
BID PROTEST--NEGOTIATIONS--BIDDER CAPABILITY DECISION TO SILICON SYSTEMS, INC; DENYING PROTEST AGAINST AWARD OF A COST -PLUS-FIXED-FEE CONTRACT TO PRESTOLITE COMPANY FOR PROTOTYPE IGNITION SYSTEM AND SPARK PLUGS FOR ARMY TANK AUTOMOTIVE COMMAND. WHERE PROTESTING OFFEROR WAS ONLY SLIGHTLY LOWER IN NUMERICAL POINT SYSTEM EVALUATION THAN SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR ON BASIS OF ESTABLISHED CRITERIA BUT ON BASIS OF PREAWARD SURVEY WAS FOUND TO HAVE ABILITY TO MEET REQUIRED SCHEDULE, DETERMINATION IS NOT SUBJECT TO QUESTION.
TO SILICON SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED:
WE REFER TO YOUR PROTEST FORWARDED HERE QUESTIONING THE AWARD OF A COST- PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE CONTRACT TO THE PRESTOLITE COMPANY UNDER REQUEST FOR QUOTATIONS NO. DAAE07-69-Q-0892, ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY TANK- AUTOMOTIVE COMMAND.
THE REQUEST FOR QUOTATIONS REQUIRED THE SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR TO DEVELOP, FABRICATE AND DELIVER 12 PROTOTYPE SOLID STATE CAPACITOR DISCHARGE IGNITION SYSTEMS AND 100 ANNULAR GAP SPARK PLUGS AND TO PREPARE SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS. THE PROTOTYPE AND SPARK PLUGS WERE FOR GOVERNMENT ENDURANCE TESTING OF THE SYSTEM. PARAGRAPH XI OF THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF QUOTATION LISTED THE FOLLOWING FACTORS FOR EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS IN THEIR DESCENDING ORDER OF WEIGHT:
"1. TECHNICAL APPROACH
A. RELIABILITY
B. MAINTAINABILITY
C. TECHNICAL DATA DOCUMENTATION
D. PRODUCTION AND ECONOMICS
E. OVERALL SIZE AND WEIGHT
F. POWER CONSUMPTION
G. ENVIRONMENTAL
H. SHIELDING TESTS
"2. ORGANIZATION
A. EXPERIENCE
B. EVIDENCE OF GOOD ORGANIZATION
C. QUALIFICATION OF PERSONNEL
D. ADEQUACY OF FACILITIES
E. RECORD OF PAST EXPERIENCE
F. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
"3. RESPONSIVENESS
A. COMPREHENSION OF PROBLEMS
B. COMPLETENESS
C. RESPONSE TO TERMS
"4. COST"
A THREE-MAN EVALUATION COMMITTEE WAS ESTABLISHED TO TECHNICALLY EVALUATE THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED. TWELVE PROPOSALS WERE SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE SOLICITATION. INITIAL EVALUATION WAS MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE COST FACTOR AND ESTABLISHED TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY OF THREE OF THE TWELVE PROPOSALS IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER OF PREFERENCE:
AMERICAN BOSCH
PRESTOLITE COMPANY
SILICON SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED SUBSEQUENT EVALUATION OF THE COST FACTOR AND THE TECHNICAL MERIT OF THE PROPOSALS THAT WERE WITHIN THE AREA OF CONSIDERATION RESULTED IN THE PROPOSALS BEING LISTED IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER OF DESCENDING MERIT:
PRESTOLITE COMPANY
SILICON SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED
AMERICAN BOSCH
PURSUANT TO ASPR 1-905, PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY WERE INITIATED ON THE ABOVE THREE COMPANIES. DATA AVAILABLE AT THE UNITED STATES ARMY TANK-AUTOMOTIVE COMMAND DISCLOSED THAT THE PRESTOLITE COMPANY AND AMERICAN BOSCH WERE RESPONSIBLE OFFERORS. SIMILAR DATA WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON SILICON SYSTEMS AND A PRE AWARD SURVEY WAS REQUESTED TO BE PERFORMED BY THE DEFENSE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES DISTRICT, ANAHEIM. THIS SURVEY RECOMMENDED NO AWARD BE MADE TO SILICON SYSTEMS, STATING THAT PLANT FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT, PERFORMANCE RECORD, AND ABILITY TO MEET THE REQUIRED SCHEDULE WERE UNSATISFACTORY. NOTWITHSTANDING THE NEGATIVE PRE-AWARD SURVEY REPORT, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER CONSIDERED SILICON SYSTEMS WITHIN THE ZONE OF CONSIDERATION FOR PURPOSES OF NEGOTIATIONS.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASPR 3-805.1 AND 10 U.S.C. 2304 (G), NEGOTIATIONS WERE CONDUCTED WITH THE THREE OFFERORS LISTED ABOVE. RESULTS OF EVALUATION (MAXIMUM POINTS - 71) WERE AS FOLLOWS:
CONTRACTOR SCORE
THE PRESTOLITE COMPANY 44.9
SILICON SYSTEMS,
INCORPORATED 43.92 AMERICAN BOSCH
41.5 THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT INDICATES COST
NEGOTIATIONS INCLUDED SPECIFIC AREAS OF COST IN EACH OF THE OFFEROR'S PROPOSALS AND RESULTED IN THE FOLLOWING TOTAL PRICES OFFERED:
THE PRESTOLITE COMPANY $76,801
SILICON SYSTEMS,
INCORPORATED $77,900 AMERICAN BOSCH
$87,400 THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED TO THE PRESTOLITE
COMPANY ON SEPTEMBER 24, 1969.
THE FACTS DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR CONTENTION THAT YOUR BID RECEIVED THE HIGHEST EVALUATION RATING ON ALL ITEMS EXCEPT COST. WHILE THE RELATIVE DIFFERENCE IN TECHNICAL MERITS BETWEEN THE PROPOSALS OF PRESTOLITE COMPANY AND SILICON SYSTEMS WAS NOT SUBSTANTIAL, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE LATTER WAS CONSIDERED TO BE SUPERIOR TO SILICON SYSTEMS BY A SLIGHT MARGIN. CONSIDERATION OF THE COST FACTOR DID NOT CHANGE THE POSITION OF THE TWO OFFERORS. ON THE RECORD, IT APPEARS THAT THE PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN AS CAREFULLY AND THOROUGHLY EVALUATED AS IS CONSONANT WITH EXPEDITIOUS PROCUREMENT. NUMEROUS ASPECTS OF EACH PROPOSAL WERE NUMERICALLY RATED BY THE THREE-MEMBER EVALUATION TEAM ON THE BASIS OF THE CRITERIA SET FORTH ABOVE. THE SELECTION OF EVALUATION CRITERIA AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE ATTACHED TO EACH FACTOR ARE PRIMARILY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROCURING ACTIVITY, ESPECIALLY WHEN TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS WHICH REQUIRE THE EXERCISE OF SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENT ARE INVOLVED. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO BASIS TO QUESTION THE REASONABLENESS AND FAIRNESS OF THE EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS OR TO OTHERWISE JUSTIFY DISTURBING THE AWARD.