Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd., MATA Helicopters Division

Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd., MATA Helicopters Division BNUMBER: B-274389; B-274389.2; B-274389.3 DATE: December 6, 1996 TITLE: Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd., MATA Helicopters Division ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 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:Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd., MATA Helicopters Division File: B-274389; B-274389.2; B-274389.3 Date:December 6, 1996 Howard J. Stanislawski, Esq., Gary P. Quigley, Esq., and Richard L. Larach, Esq., Sidley & Austin, for the protester. Irvin Becker, Esq., for Lear Astronics Corporation, the intervenor. Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., and Tina Marie Pixler, Esq., Department of the Army, 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 1. In a negotiated procurement with a stated best value evaluation plan, a contracting agency reasonably may assign a technically acceptable proposal fewer than the maximum possible evaluation score where such rating is reasonable and consistent with the evaluation methodology applied to all proposals. 2. Enhanced safety of a proposed auxiliary fuel monitoring system for a helicopter, when considered in a source selection decision, is not an unstated evaluation factor where, although not specifically stated as a factor, it is intrinsic to various stated evaluation factors. 3. Agency's identification of advantages in a proposal is not improper, even where solicitation does not state that agency will identify advantages in addition to numerically rating proposals, since source selection officials in best value procurements may always consider such information when analyzing numerical ratings. 4. Agency reasonably may evaluate an offer as posing a higher past performance risk than other offers where the offeror's performance history as stated in the proposal or otherwise obtained by the agency during evaluations is less relevant to the solicited requirement than that of the offerors rated as having a low performance risk. 5. Selection of a higher priced, higher rated offeror under a procurement where non-price factors are more important than price is reasonable where the source selection decision is consistent with the stated evaluation plan and is reasonably supported by the record. DECISION Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd., MATA Helicopters Division, protests an award to Lear Astronics Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAJ09-95-R-0217, issued by the U.S. Army Aviation and Troop Command for the modification of External Stores Support System (ESSS) and External Range Fuel System (ERFS) Mission Kits with an Auxiliary Fuel Monitoring System for the UH/EH-60 (Blackhawk Helicopter) aircraft. Israel Aircraft contends that the evaluations and source selection decision were unreasonable and otherwise improper. We deny the protests. The Blackhawk Helicopter, by means of the ESSS and ERFS Mission Kits, uses outboard and/or inboard auxiliary fuel tanks to extend its flight range. Other than a float sensor to indicate when a tank is empty and a flowmeter to indicate the flow of fuel, the aircraft does not have a fuel monitoring system to indicate the level of fuel remaining in each auxiliary tank. The lack of such a fuel monitoring system currently creates difficulties for the flight crew in the management of auxiliary fuel use and of changes in the center-of-gravity of the aircraft. These difficulties create a risk to human safety and reportedly contributed to a fatal crash. This RFP solicited proposals to modify the current auxiliary fuel system with an accurate fuel monitoring system that would eliminate these difficulties. The RFP, issued on June 26, 1995, contemplated award of a firm, fixed-price contract for base and option quantities. Initial proposals were submitted by September 6. During the course of evaluations, the Army determined that amendment of the RFP was necessary to eliminate ambiguities and conflicts. The agency suspended evaluations to permit such amendment and submission of revised proposals. The amended RFP stated that award would be made on a best value basis with all non-price evaluation areas--technical, logistics, and past performance--together being more important than price. The technical area and price "are approximately equal in value and the most significant evaluation areas[,]" and the logistics area and past performance risk "are approximately equal in value and significantly less important" than the technical area and price.