The agency assessed a strength to offerors who proposed a device that weighed at least one pound less than 35 pounds. The protester’s device weighed 34.09 pounds. While only one-tenth of a pound off, GAO found the agency reasonably refused to assess the protester a strength.
3M Scott Fire and Safety, GAO B-421025.2, B-421025.3
- Weight of Equipment – The solicitation sought a breathing apparatus. The solicitation stated the apparatus should weigh less than 35 pounds. The protester said it should have received strength for proposing an apparatus that weighed 34.09 pounds. Indeed, the awardee had received a strength for proposing an apparatus that weighed 33.97 pounds. GAO found the agency had reasonably determined that anything less than a pound did not provide a significant weight reduction. While the protester’s apparatus provided nine-tenths of a pound of benefit, it was still not enough of a weight reduction to result in a strength.
- Awardee’s Technical Risk – The protester argued the awardee’s apparatus presenedt a high level of technical risk. GAO was unconvinced. 54 agency personnel reviewed the awardees’ apparatus and determined it was outstanding.
- Unstated Criteria – The protester argued the agency applied unstated criteria when it assessed a strength to the awardee for its production capacity. GAO noted that while the solicitation did not mention production capacity, the assessed strength was encompassed by the stated criteria. There was a clear nexus between being able to marshal resources to meet a requirement and concluding the awardee’s accelerated production rate was beneficial.
- Unequal Discussions – The protester complained the agency instructed the awardee to propose a higher output delivery schedule but did not similarly instruct the protester. But GAO found the awardee had proposed higher output delivery in its technical proposal. The agency had told the awardee that its technical proposal should match its delivery schedule. The protester, however, never proposed a high output delivery schedule.
- Price Evaluation – The protester argued the agency should have found the awardee’s price unbalanced. The agency reasonably found that none of the protester’s CLINs were overstated or understated.
The protester is represented by Eric S. Crusius, Jeremy Burkhart, and Kelsey M. Hayes of Holland & Knight LLP. The awardee is represented by Amy Laderberg O’Sulivan, Cherie J. Owen, Michael E. Samuels, and Isaac. Schabes of Crowell & Moring LLP. The agency is represented by Colonel Frank Yoon, Nicholas T. Iliff, Jr. and Major Erik T. Fuqua of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Todd C. Culliton and Tania Calhoun participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig Lachance, Senior Editor
