BNUMBER: B-280250
DATE: August 7, 1998
TITLE: Chant Engineering Co. Inc., B-280250, August 7, 1998
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Chant Engineering Co. Inc.
File:B-280250
Date:August 7, 1998
Philip Chant for the protester.
Maj. Richard E. Grant and Julius Rothlein, Esq., Marine Corps, for the
agency.
Adam Vodraska, Esq., and Jerold D. Cohen, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Where protester had previously produced items similar to type
being solicited, while awardee had previously produced the very same
type of item, awardee reasonably received a higher past performance
score than the protester, even though solicitation considered
acceptable experience producing either the same or a similar type of
item.
2. In evaluating proposals, the contracting agency reasonably
assigned the minimum score to the life expectancy of the protester's
product under the solicitation's reliability factor where the
protester merely offered the minimum required life expectancy without
providing a methodology that might support a longer life expectancy
claim.
DECISION
Chant Engineering Co. Inc. protests the evaluation of its proposal and
the award of a contract to Bauer Howden, Inc. by the United States
Marine Corps under request for proposals (RFP) No. M00146-98-R-0003
for two aircraft fuel nozzle test stands.
We deny the protest.
The RFP's specification for the fuel nozzle test stand set out minimum
requirements for design, manufacture, and delivery, and provided that
"[t]his specification is for the express purpose of soliciting
technical proposals and cost estimates for a nozzle test stand from an
established contractor having experience in the design and manufacture
of aircraft fuel components test stands." RFP sec. C, para. 1.1. The test
stands will be used to test the performance characteristics of
aircraft fuel nozzles and other fuel equipment components in
accordance with the equipment's associated technical manuals. RFP sec.
C, para. 3.2, 3.3.1.1. The required major components of the test stand
include a test stand enclosure and test sink, a fuel supply and
control system, an operator console and instrumentation, and a
patternator.[1] RFP sec. C, para. 3.2.1.
The RFP established minimum standards of reliability for the test
stand by requiring that the item be designed for a mean time between
failures (MTBF) of at least 500 hours and for a useful life (life
expectancy) of 10 years (approximately 2,000 hours per year). RFP sec.
C, para. 3.3.3. The RFP also required that an offeror furnish
documentation that substantiates that its test stand meets the
reliability requirements of section C, paragraph 3.3.3. RFP sec. C, para.
4.1.1.2. According to the RFP, "[t]hese requirements can be validated
by the contractor by a theoretical study or by citing comparability to
similar systems presently in use." Id. Reliability validation had to
be provided for both MTBF and useful life. Id.
The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract based on the
following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of
importance:
1. TECHNICAL FACTORS
A. Reliability
1. [MTBF], which includes evaluation of the method used to
determine the MTBF for the proposed test stand.
2. Life Expectancy, which includes evaluation of the method
used to determine the Life Expectancy of the proposed test
stand.
B. Warranty
C. Training
2. PRICE
3. PAST PERFORMANCE
RFP sec. M, at 43. The RFP specified that the technical factors and past
performance, when combined, were significantly more important than
cost or price. Id.
For the past performance factor, the RFP instructed offerors to
"describe [their] experience with producing the same or similar items
within the last three (3) years." RFP sec. L, at 39. On the same page,
the RFP also instructed offerors how MTBF and life expectancy would be
evaluated under the reliability factor:
Preference shall be given to those with the higher MTBF, i.e.
1500 hours of MTBF will be given a higher rating than those with
[a] rating of 500, and the test stands with life expectancy of 15
years shall be given a higher rating than those with a life
expectancy of 10 years. [An] MTBF of less than 500 hours shall
be considered unsatisfactory. In addition, the methodology used
in determining the MTBF and the Life Expectancy of the proposed
fuel nozzle test life will be evaluated. Proven examples that
can be validated shall receive a higher rating than theoretical
studies (see section C, paragraph 3.3.3 and 4.1.1.2).
Three offerors, including Chant and Bauer, submitted proposals in
response to the RFP. The agency's evaluators assigned Bauer the
maximum score for past performance because the firm demonstrated that
it had manufactured multiple test stands of the type being procured.
Chant's proposal received the minimum acceptable score for past
performance because, while Chant had designed and installed many types
of test stands, Chant provided no evidence that it had designed a
nozzle test stand with a patternator, the type of stand solicited
here. For the reliability technical factor, Chant received a high
score for MTBF and the minimum score for life expectancy, while Bauer
received a high score for both MTBF and life expectancy.
Because Chant and Bauer received the same scores in all other areas of
the technical evaluation, the differences in their scores for the past
performance and reliability factors accounted for the total point
difference in their technical scores and for Bauer's overall higher
score for the technical factors. Although Chant's total price was
$21,700 less than Bauer's, the contracting officer determined that
Bauer's proposal represented the best value to the government, in
light of its higher overall weighted score, and awarded the contract
to Bauer for $452,250.[2] Chant requested and received a debriefing,
and then filed an agency-level protest contesting the selection
decision. After the agency denied the protest, Chant filed this
protest with our Office.
Chant first contends that, because the RFP's past performance
evaluation factor required only that an offeror furnish evidence that
it is an established contractor having experience in the design and
manufacture of similar items, and did not state that a preference
would be given to an offeror who has made the same type of test stand
before, Bauer, which has previously manufactured the same type of test
stand, unfairly received a higher score for past performance than did
Chant, which has made similar but not the same type of test stands.
Chant argues that the agency's evaluators should have given Chant's
proposal the highest past performance score--equal to that of
Bauer--since it met all the requirements of the RFP by demonstrating
Chant's experience with similar test stands.[3]
We disagree. Agencies properly may take into consideration specific,
albeit not expressly identified, experience in making qualitative
distinctions between competing proposals, so long as the specific
experience is logically encompassed by or related to the RFP's
requirements and stated basis for evaluation; accordingly, it is not
objectionable for an agency to rate a firm that has previously
supplied the same type of item called for under the RFP higher than a
firm with more general experience. See Counter Tech. Inc., B-260853,
July 20, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 39 at 4; Fidelity Techs. Corp., B-258944,
Feb. 22, 1955, 95-1 CPD para. 112 at 2-3.
Here, while an offeror was not required to show that it had produced
the same type of item to be acceptable under the RFP's past
performance factor--it merely had to have produced similar items--this
does not mean that an offeror with experience producing similar items
had to be scored the same as an offeror that has produced the same
type of item. Indeed, as noted above, the RFP was "for the express
purpose of soliciting technical proposals and cost estimates for a
nozzle test stand from an established contractor having experience in
the design and manufacture of aircraft fuel components test stands."
RFP sec. C, para. 1.1. While the record shows that Chant has experience in
the design and manufacture of test stands, including a fuel component
test stand, it does not show that Chant has the specific experience
with aircraft fuel nozzle test stands that Bauer does. Accordingly,
we think the agency reasonably concluded that Bauer's proposal,
reflecting more relevant successful past performance producing the
same type of test stand solicited by the RFP, should be rated higher
in this regard than Chant's proposal, which reflects less relevant
past performance.
Chant next contends that, because the evaluators assigned Chant the
same high score as Bauer for MTBF under the reliability technical
factor, the evaluators improperly assigned Chant the minimum score for
life expectancy, which Chant claims is intertwined with its test
stand's MTBF, justifying a higher score. Specifically, Chant asserts
that section C, paragraph 3.3.3 of the RFP equates an MTBF of 500
hours to a life expectancy of 10 years, and argues that, since Chant
specified an MTBF of 1,000 hours, the life expectancy of its test
stand is at least 20 years--the same as Bauer's--and thus should have
received the same high score as did Bauer for life expectancy.
In reviewing a protest challenging an agency's technical evaluation,
we examine the record to ensure that the agency's evaluation was
reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.
Stewart Title of Orange County, Inc., B-261164, Aug. 21, 1995, 95-2
CPD para. 75 at 3-4.
Contrary to Chant's assertion, section C, paragraph 3.3.3 of the RFP
did not equate the required minimum MTBF of 500 hours to a life
expectancy of 10 years. Rather, paragraph 3.3.3 separately specified
the required minimum MTBF and the required minimum life expectancy for
the test stand:
3.3.3 Reliability. The nozzle test stand shall be designed for
a mean time between failures of at least 500 hours. The test
stand shall be designed for a useful life of 10 years
(approximately 2000 hours per year).
Indeed, information in Chant's own comments on the agency's
administrative report responding to the protest indicates that MTBF
and life expectancy, while correlated, are separate measures of
reliability; this is consistent with the RFP treating MTBF and life
expectancy as separate elements of the reliability factor, each
requiring its own validation.[4]
In any event, Chant provided no basis in its proposal to support the
assertion made in its protest that its test stand, which provides an
MTBF double the minimum required, also provides--by implication--a
life expectancy double the minimum 10 years required. As Chant itself
concedes, it did not state a specific 20-year life for its test stand
in its proposal. Rather, Chant's proposal stated that its test stand
"will have a useful life of at least 10 years (2,000 hrs. per year)";
that "by using easily maintained or replaceable components, a design
life of ten years will readily be achieved"; and that "[t]he ten year
design life will readily be achieved providing that the equipment is
properly maintained." Chant Technical Proposal at 4, Appendix - MTBF
Determination. Accordingly, we think the agency's evaluators
reasonably assigned Chant the minimum score for life expectancy.
Chant nonetheless argues that the evaluators should have concluded,
based on the MTBF methodology it provided in its proposal, that the
life expectancy of its test stand "is really open ended." Protest at
3. Chant maintains that the evaluators apparently understood neither
its MTBF methodology (and the interrelationship of MTBF with life
expectancy) nor reliability methodology in general. According to
Chant, capable evaluators would have given Chant more than the minimum
score for the life expectancy subfactor. However, Chant did not
provide reliability validation documentation, as required by section
C, paragraph 4.1.1.2 of the RFP, that would support a claimed life
expectancy of more than 10 years. Nor was there information or a
methodology in the proposal from which the evaluators otherwise
reasonably should have divined a life expectancy of more than the one
Chant specifically offered.
Chant also argues in its comments, at 4, that because the life
expectancy of a test stand is related to the level of maintenance
performed on the stand, it is not possible to give a finite design
life without extensive testing and "[s]tating a long life expectancy
is meaningless." According to Chant, "[i]t is also known to be
unreliable to use examples of previous products in the field since the
MTBF and the life expectancy are totally dependent on the maintenance
performed by the specific end user on the specific product." Id. In
this regard, Chant states that the only way Bauer could have rated a
higher score than Chant for life expectancy would be for the agency to
have had a Bauer test stand on-site and to have tested the stand for
more than 20 years to verify Bauer's claimed life expectancy.
We construe this aspect of Chant's protest, first raised in its
comments, as essentially an untimely protest of the terms of the RFP.
As described above, the RFP instructed offerors to specify the life
expectancy of their proposed test stands and provided that test stand
life expectancies longer than the minimum 10 years would receive
higher scores. To evaluate the methodology used by offerors to
determine the MTBF and life expectancy of their test stands, the RFP,
at 39, stated that "[p]roven examples that can be validated shall
receive a higher rating than theoretical studies." RFP sec. L, at 39.
In this regard, section C, paragraph 4.1.1.2 of the RFP permitted
offerors to validate their reliability claims "by citing comparability
to similar systems presently in use," which the record shows was how
Bauer supported its reliability claims. If Chant objected to these
terms of the RFP, it should have protested them before the date for
submission of proposals, as is required to timely protest an alleged
solicitation impropriety. 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.2(a)(1) (1998).
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. The patternator is used for testing fuel nozzle and other fuel
equipment components "which require spray angle and patternation
measurement." RFP sec. C, para. 3.3.2.4.
2. Federal Acquisition Regulation sec. 52.212-1(g), incorporated in the
RFP, informed offerors that the agency might award a contract without
discussions. RFP sec. I,
at 19. The Marine Corps did not conduct discussions with any of the
offerors, and Chant does not contend that the agency should have done
so regarding the past performance or life expectancy aspects of its
proposal.
3. Chant does not contest Bauer's past performance score. The agency
notes that, even if Chant had received the maximum possible score for
past performance, Chant still would not have received the highest
overall weighted score.
4. The information presented by Chant in its comments is from the
Department of Defense's Reliability Analysis Center.