GEC-Marconi Electronic Systems Corporation, B-276186; B-

GEC-Marconi Electronic Systems Corporation, B-276186; B- BNUMBER: B-276186; B-276186.2 DATE: May 21, 1997 TITLE: GEC-Marconi Electronic Systems Corporation, B-276186; B- 276186.2, May 21, 1997 ********************************************************************** 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:GEC-Marconi Electronic Systems Corporation File: B-276186; B-276186.2 Date:May 21, 1997 Paul Shnitzer, Esq., Jean-Pierre Swennen, Esq., and Todd Hutchen, Esq., Crowell & Moring, L.L.P., for the protester. Alan R. Yuspeh, Esq., Jerone C. Cecelic, Esq., and Andrew Irwin, Esq., Howrey & Simon, for Rockwell International Corp., the intervenor. M. Steele Kenyon, Esq., Roger J. McAvoy, Esq., Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., and Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably determined as the result of a price realism evaluation conducted in accordance with a solicitation providing for the award of a firm, fixed-priced contract that the protester's proposed prices were unrealistically low where the protester's proposed prices were far lower than historical prices for the same and similar products and the protester failed to provide adequate justification for the price differential. 2. Agency's assessment of the protester's past performance as posing a moderate risk is unobjectionable where the agency reasonably determined that the protester's past performance indicated a "track record" over the past 3 years of the protester failing to make timely deliveries. DECISION GEC-Marconi Electronic Systems Corporation protests the award of a contract to Rockwell International Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. F19628- 96-R-0068, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for joint tactical information distribution system (JTIDS) class 2/2H terminals, related spares, data, and services. GEC contends that the agency's evaluation of its and Rockwell's proposals, and the selection of Rockwell's higher-priced proposal for award, were unreasonable. We deny the protest. The JTIDS is a multinational, joint-service program to acquire a secure, jam- resistant, multiple-access digital voice data information distribution system for the transfer of tactical information between combat elements, data collection elements, and command and control centers within a tactical theater of operations. The JTIDS class 2/2H terminals were developed under a leader/follower arrangement, with GEC appointed as the leader and Rockwell as the follower. Under the leader/follower concept, the leader company is the developer or sole producer of an item or system. The leader furnishes manufacturing assistance and expertise to the follower, which enables the follower to become a source of supply for the item. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sec. 17.401-17.403 (FAC 90-42); Kaman Aerospace Corp., B-209220, June 20, 1983, 83-1 CPD para. 667 at 1. GEC and Rockwell have been awarded five and four low-rate initial production contracts, respectively, and each was awarded a full-rate production (FRP) contract in 1995. The RFP, issued October 29, 1996, provided for the award of a firm, fixed-price, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity FRP contract on a "winner-take-all-down- select" basis for various configurations of JTIDS class 2/2H terminals,[1] related spares, data, and services to be ordered during fiscal years 1997 through 1999. The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror submitting the proposal judged to be most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered, and that "cost/price" was more important than technical merit. The RFP listed Resource Management and Problem Resolution, and Parts Obsolescence, as the two technical evaluation factors, and stated that they were equal in importance.