Recon Optical, Inc.; Lockheed-Martin Corporation,

Recon Optical, Inc.; Lockheed-Martin Corporation, BNUMBER: B-272239; B-272239.2 DATE: July 17, 1996 TITLE: Recon Optical, Inc.; Lockheed-Martin Corporation, Fairchild Systems ********************************************************************** Matter of:Recon Optical, Inc.; Lockheed-Martin Corporation, Fairchild Systems File: B-272239; B-272239.2 Date:July 17, 1996 Jed L. Babbin, Esq., Thomas Earl Patton, Esq., and Lisa E. Stern, Esq., Tighe, Patton, Tabackman & Babbin, for Recon Optical, Inc., and Ronald K. Henry, Esq., and Mark A. Riordan, Esq., Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, for Lockheed-Martin Corporation, Fairchild Systems, the protesters. Harriet J. Halper, Esq., Gregory L. Edlefsen, Esq., and Andrew C. Saunders, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Multiple awardees, each receiving a research and development contract for the development and testing of its proposed innovative design for an airborne reconnaissance camera, are not interested parties to protest the awards to each other where the solicitation permits multiple awards and neither awardee's contract is affected by the award or failure to award a contract to the other. DECISION Recon Optical, Inc. and Lockheed-Martin Corporation, Fairchild Systems protest awards to each other under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00014-95-R-DB04, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Research Laboratory, for the development and testing of an electro-optical (EO) camera for airborne reconnaissance. We dismiss the protests because the protesters are not interested parties. The RFP, as initially issued, contemplated award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract. Section M of the RFP established a best value evaluation basis with technical factors being more important than cost, and stated that: "Award will be made to that offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government, proposed cost and other factors considered." The RFP schedule requested proposed costs for four contract line items (two of which were for documentation and data which were not to be specifically priced) covering the development and testing of the camera in accordance with an attached statement of work (SOW). The SOW stated: "This [SOW] addresses the development and testing of an Ultra-High Resolution Digital Framing [EO] camera with on-chip image motion compensation or on focal-plane equivalent. . . . This effort shall include an analysis of the camera specifications based on performance requirements, the development of a preliminary camera design, the development of a detailed camera design, the fabrication of the camera, the testing and delivery of the camera, and support for data collection and analysis." The SOW stated performance specifications for the camera, and also stated the requirements and time schedule for the development and testing of a prototype camera. The RFP did not provide for future production of the camera beyond the prototype. Only Recon Optical and Fairchild submitted proposals. The Navy conducted discussions with these offerors. Prior to requesting best and final offers (BAFO), the Navy issued amendment 0009 to the RFP on March 21, 1996, which provided for the possibility of an award of a cost reimbursement contract without fee and for a cost sharing contract. The amendment also provided for multiple awards as follows: "The [g]overnment reserves the right to make more than one (1) award at different contract values for the same [SOW] as a result of this Solicitation." The amendment provided offerors with an opportunity to revise their proposals as a result of this amendment. The Navy requested and received BAFOs from both offerors. Recon Optical proposed a cost reimbursement contract for $3,258,123 and Fairchild proposed a cost sharing contract with a cost to the government of $2,500,000. After determining that both offerors' technical approaches, although different, were consistent with the RFP, the Navy awarded separate contracts to Recon Optical and Fairchild on May 21 and 22, respectively. Both offerors requested and received debriefings, and these protests followed. Both protesters essentially allege that the Navy's evaluation of proposals was defective or unreasonable, and that the other protester's BAFO is technically unacceptable under the stated evaluation scheme.[1] Recon Optical also alleges that the agency did not properly determine in accordance with the RFP whether two awards or a single award represented the best value to the government. Under the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. sec.