Orbit Advanced Technologies, Inc.

B-271293 May 24, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The protest is denied. The radome in question is a bulbous-shaped housing that covers the radar on the MC- 130H Combat Talon II aircraft. Verification testing is performed to ensure that the housing surface has no blemishes that would degrade the effectiveness of the radar signal. The contractor is to provide on a turnkey basis the complete facility necessary to perform the radome verification testing. Detailed specifications for the facility and equipment were provided in the RFP. Offerors were informed that award would be made on a best value basis. The following evaluation factors and subfactors were identified. Logistics management Price Offerors were also informed that the agency would assess the soundness of approach presented by a proposal. View Decision Matter of: Orbit Advanced Technologies, Inc. File: B-271293 Date: May 24, 1996 The contracting agency reasonably excluded the protester's proposal from the competitive range where the number and magnitude of deficiencies and weaknesses evaluated in the protester's unacceptable proposal would necessitate a major proposal revision for the proposal to be made acceptable. Attorneys DECISION Orbit Advanced Technologies, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. F33657-95-R-0049, issued by the Department of the Air Force for a radome verification system. The protest is denied. The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside, provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for the construction of a radome verification system at Warner-Robins Air Force Base, Georgia. The radome in question is a bulbous-shaped housing that covers the radar on the MC- 130H Combat Talon II aircraft. Verification testing is performed to ensure that the housing surface has no blemishes that would degrade the effectiveness of the radar signal. The contractor is to provide on a turnkey basis the complete facility necessary to perform the radome verification testing. This includes construction of an anechoic chamber, [1] a "parent enclosure," and provision of all necessary equipment and software to perform the testing. Detailed specifications for the facility and equipment were provided in the RFP. Offerors were informed that award would be made on a best value basis, based upon an integrated assessment of the offerors' proposals under stated specific evaluation factors and general considerations, and considering the offerors' evaluated proposal and performance risks. The following evaluation factors and subfactors were identified, as being in descending order of importance: Technical a. Anechoic chamber and equipment b. Parent enclosure c. Software c. Testing, time, and methodology Management a. Program management b. Logistics management Price Offerors were also informed that the agency would assess the soundness of approach presented by a proposal, as well as the offerors' understanding and compliance with the RFP requirements. The RFP provided that proposals were limited to 100 pages for the technical evaluation factor and 50 pages for the program management factor, and that technical proposals must identify the equipment and software offered and how the offered equipment and software satisfied the technical requirements. Offerors were also instructed to provide sufficient cost/price information to establish the reasonableness, realism, and completeness of proposed pricing. The Air Force received four proposals, including Orbit's, by the closing date for receipt of proposals. Initial proposals were evaluated under an adjectival rating scheme, as follows: [2] Offerors A B C Orbit Technical Anechoic Chamber Y/L Y/M Y/M R/H Parent Enclosure Y/M R/H Y/L R/H Software Y/L Y/M Y/L Y/M Testing, time, and methodology Y/L Y/M Y/L R/H Management Program Management Y/H Y/M Y/H Y/H Logistics Management Y/M Y/M Y/M Y/M Price $6.2M [3] $8.5M $7.2M $6.9M Orbit's unacceptable ratings under three of the four technical evaluation subfactors reflected the evaluators' view that Orbit's proposal required major revisions to become acceptable. In this regard, the agency's evaluators identified 39 deficiencies and 39 other areas requiring clarification in Orbit's proposal. For example, under the anechoic chamber subfactor, the evaluators found, among other things, that Orbit did not provide emergency lighting for the chamber; that Orbit did not provide limit switches on the positioner axes of the "unit under test" (UUT); that Orbit's proposed signal source subsystem did not meet spectral purity or internal leveling requirements; and that Orbit's proposed power supplies for the UUT stimulus generator did not meet resolution and ripple requirements. Orbit's proposal was also assessed as unacceptable under the parent enclosure subfactor because Orbit did not address the acoustical control and facility power requirements.