Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of the Army
Disposition: Protest denied.
Keywords: Technical Evaluation
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: In reviewing an agency’s evaluation of proposals, the GAO will not reevaluate proposals; rather, it will examine the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation conclusions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation as well as applicable procurements laws and regulations.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
HDT Tactical Systems, Inc. (HDT) protests the elimination of its proposal from further consideration during a downselection procedure conducted by the Department of the Army in connection with the acquisition of variously-sized improved environmental control units (IECUs) under a request for proposals.
The agency issued the RFP in 2008 and awarded a contract to HDT. HDT’s contract contemplated potentially four phases of performance. During phase one, the contractor was to design and fabricate two prototype IECUs. At the conclusion of phase one, the contract called for performance testing on the prototype units to determine whether they met various performance characteristics required by the underlying contract’s purchase descriptions. Selection was to be based on the results of the various tests performed. Testing measured five parameters: 1) total cooling capacity; 2) sensible cooling capacity; 3) high temperature operational limit; 4) power consumption; and 5) weight.
HDT’s two units failed the high temperature operational limit test and the sensible cooling capacity test, respectively. Based on the test results, the agency chose the other contractor. HDT protested the decision.
GAO states that in reviewing an agency’s evaluation of proposals, it will not reevaluate proposals; rather, it will examine the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation conclusions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation as well as applicable procurements laws and regulations.
GAO has no basis to object to the evaluation here. The solicitation required passage of all tests in order for a proposal to be considered for award. HDT’s proposal was properly excluded from further consideration based on the failure of the two tests independently. HDT also argues that the other contractor was allowed to postpone its testing. However, the record shows that HDT did not ask to reschedule its testing date otherwise the agency would have provided HDT the same opportunity. The protest is denied.