Rockwell International Corporation

Rockwell International Corporation BNUMBER: B-261953.2; B-261953.6 DATE: November 22, 1995 TITLE: Rockwell International Corporation ********************************************************************** REDACTED DECISION A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Rockwell International Corporation File: B-261953.2; B-261953.6 Date: November 22, 1995 Alan R. Yuspeh, Esq., David R. Francis, Esq., Jerone C. Cecelic, Esq., Natalie S. Manzo, Esq., and Michael W. Ambrose, Esq., Howrey & Simon, for the protester. Gerard F. Doyle, Esq., Ron R. Hutchinson, Esq., Scott A. Ford, Esq., Alexander T. Bakos, Esq., and Scott W. Woehr, Esq., Doyle & Bachman; and Steven A. Kaufman, Esq., Clayton S. Marsh, Esq., and James M. Lichtman, Esq., Ropes & Gray, for Beech Aircraft Corporation, the interested party. Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., Duncan Butts, Esq., Jeffrey Watson, Esq., Janice Beckett, Esq., Mark Otto, Esq., and Robert McGrath, Esq., for the agency. Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protester's contention that agency improperly evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation, and the record reasonably supports the evaluators' conclusions. 2. Contracting agency reasonably evaluated protester's performance risk as "moderate" on several evaluation factors based upon unfavorable information in "contractor performance assessment reports" and in responses to questionnaires reflecting the protester's recent poor performance on other contracts. 3. Agency conducted meaningful discussions where the record shows that the agency held written and oral discussions based on items consistent with the weaknesses and deficiencies identified in the protester's proposal, and the protester was afforded several opportunities to address the specific areas of its proposal considered weak or deficient and requiring further explanation. 4. Award to offeror submitting a higher-rated, slightly higher-cost, low risk proposal is unobjectionable where the evaluation scheme announced in the solicitation gave more weight to the technical factors than to cost, and the agency reasonably found that the awardee's technical superiority and low risk were worth the higher cost. DECISION Rockwell International Corporation protests the proposed award of a contract to Beech Aircraft Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. F33657-94-R-0006, issued by the Department of the Air Force for a joint primary aircraft training system (JPATS). Rockwell challenges the proposed award on several grounds including that the agency's evaluation of proposals was flawed and that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with Rockwell. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The objective of the JPATS procurement is to replace the Air Force's T-37B and the Navy's T-34C aircraft and associated ground based training systems (GBTS). The primary mission of the JPATS aircraft and GBTS is to train entry-level Air Force and Navy student pilots in primary flying and to prepare them to transition into advanced training tracks leading to qualification as a military pilot. The JPATS aircraft and GBTS will also provide entry-level officers with a basic understanding of airmanship prior to their designation as Naval Flight Officers or Air Force Navigators, as well as provide support and training for pilot instructors. The RFP characterized the acquisition as a "fly-before-buy" procurement. That is, the RFP stated that as part of the evaluation process, the government would fly each offeror's proposed aircraft to assess its performance and flying qualities. Thus, in addition to written proposals, offerors were required to provide an evaluation aircraft with flying qualities which duplicated those of the proposed production aircraft. The RFP stated that the flight evaluation would assess the capability of each aircraft to train an entry-level student pilot with no prior flying experience to the proficiency level required by the primary pilot training syllabus. Air Force and Navy test pilots and customer pilots would evaluate each aircraft. In addition, the Air Force's Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) would perform an early operational assessment of each aircraft during the flight evaluation.