ATA Defense Industries, Inc.--Costs, B-282511.6, March 14, 2000

B-282511.6 Mar 14, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Request for recommendation that protest costs be reimbursed is denied where agency decides to take corrective action in response to protest. The issue on which the corrective action was based was a "close question. The ratings of excellent and good are relevant here. The rating of excellent was reserved for offerors whose hit detection device (HDD) was able to accurately calculate "the location of hits . . . to within 60 mm of where the round actually penetrated the plane of the target . . . .". Was reserved for offerors whose device could locate hits to within 120 mm. Was unreasonable and could only result in confirming the initial award to Caswell. Which was already rated excellent in the area of hit detection. View Decision Matter of: ATA Defense Industries, Inc.--Costs File: B-282511.6 Date: March 14, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION ATA Defense Industries, Inc. requests that our Office recommend that it recover the costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred in connection with its protest challenging proposed corrective action by the Department of the Army in response to our decision in ATA Defense Indus., Inc., B-282511, B-282511.2, July 21, 1999, 99-2 CPD Para. 33, which sustained ATA's protest of a contract award to Caswell International Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAE20-98-R-0215, issued by the Army's Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command for the Intermediate New Generation Army Targetry System (INGATS). After ATA filed its challenge to the Army's proposed corrective action, and prior to our decision, the Army abandoned its proposed approach and adopted an approach consistent with one suggested by ATA in its protest. We deny the request. The disputes in this procurement, set forth in greater detail in the above-referenced decision, spring from a unique feature of the Army's scheme for evaluating INGATS proposals. In particular, the Army used adjectival ratings to assess an offeror's ability to achieve certain performance characteristics related to the solicitation's most important technical sub-element --i.e., hit detection. The ratings of excellent and good are relevant here. The rating of excellent was reserved for offerors whose hit detection device (HDD) was able to accurately calculate "the location of hits . . . to within 60 mm of where the round actually penetrated the plane of the target . . . ." RFP amend. 0007, at 3-4. The next highest rating, good, was reserved for offerors whose device could locate hits to within 120 mm, as opposed to the 60 mm accuracy required for an excellent rating. Our decision sustaining ATA's initial protest found that the tolerances identified in Caswell's proposal for its non-contact HDD could report hits located more than 60 mm from the point where the round penetrated the target plane. ATA Defense Indus., Inc., supra, at 11. Thus, the decision held that Army's assessment of the Caswell device as excellent under this technical sub-element, rather than good, violated the RFP's evaluation scheme. Accordingly, we recommended that the Army re-evaluate the proposals in accordance with the stated evaluation scheme, and make a new best value determination. Id. at 15. By letter dated August 18, the Army advised ATA that rather than re-evaluate the proposals as written, it intended to reopen discussions limited to the subject of hit detection. The letter also indicated that any revisions to proposals would be similarly limited to the area of hit detection, and that revisions to other areas, or to price, would not be allowed. On August 25, ATA filed a protest with our Office alleging that the Army's decision to reopen discussions limited to hit detection--rather than simply re-evaluate as our decision recommended--was unreasonable and could only result in confirming the initial award to Caswell. In support of its argument, ATA pointed out that: (1) Caswell's proposed approach to hit detection complied with the solicitation's requirements and did not contain weaknesses which required discussions; and that (2) ATA's proposal, which was already rated excellent in the area of hit detection, could not receive a higher rating if discussions were limited as planned. Thus, ATA argued that reopening discussions was not justified under these circumstances. For relief, ATA asked that the Army be required to simply re-evaluate the proposals, as our Office had recommended, or alternatively, permit complete discussions and unlimited proposal revisions before making a new best value determination. On September 29, the Army submitted an agency report defending its decision to conduct limited discussions rather than to re-evaluate proposals. In particular, the Army cited our decision in Rel-Tek Sys. & Design, Inc.--Modification of Remedy, B-280463.7, July 1, 1999, 99-1 CPD Para.