Interstate Electronics Corporation, B-286466; B-286466.2, January 12, 2001

Interstate Electronics Corporation, B-286466; B-286466.2, January 12, 2001 TITLE: Interstate Electronics Corporation, B-286466; B-286466.2, January 12, 2001 BNUMBER: B-286466; B-286466.2 DATE: January 12, 2001 ********************************************************************** Interstate Electronics Corporation, B-286466; B-286466.2, January 12, 2001 Decision Matter of: Interstate Electronics Corporation File: B-286466; B-286466.2 Date: January 12, 2001 Jessica C. Abrahams, Esq., Carl A. Gebo, Esq., Curtis J. Romig, Esq., and William R. Joiner, Esq., Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, for the protester. Kerri A. Cox, Esq., Judith L. Richardson, Esq., and Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where solicitation incorporated a Critical Requirements List (CRL) and expressly advised offerors that the CRL reflected the agency's minimum requirements, and agency further reminded protester during oral presentation and in subsequent written evaluation notices that all CRL items must be met, protester's assertion that the solicitation "[did] not indicate in any way that the CRL will be considered in source selection" is without basis. 2. Agency reasonably rejected protester's proposal as "not technically sound or failing to meet the agency's needs" where protester's proposal failed to provide adequate assurance that the protester's contract performance would comply with several aspects of the solicitation's minimum requirements. 3. Agency's discussions with protester were meaningful where written evaluation notices advised protester of multiple portions of its proposal which failed to comply with solicitation's minimum requirements. DECISION Interstate Electronics Corporation (IEC) protests the Department of the Air Force's rejection of a proposal IEC submitted in response to Program Research and Development Announcement (PRDA) No. 00-32, [1] which sought proposals to conduct research and development related to global positioning system (GPS) ground receiver capabilities. [2] IEC complains that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as being not technically sound, [3] and failed to conduct meaningful discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Over the last several years, the Department of Defense (DOD) has conducted market research and investigated acquisition alternatives aimed at replacing its current inventory of precision lightweight GPS receivers (PLGR). [4] These activities led to DOD's preparation of a draft performance specification for the Defense Advanced GPS Receiver (DAGR), which reflects DOD's requirements for both handheld and "integrated" use of GPS receivers. [5] The PRDA at issue here was published on June 20, 2000 and expressed the agency's intent to select at least two offerors to conduct research on, and perform development of, both "higher end" and "lower end" GPS receiver solutions during the 14-month period following contract award. [6] The PRDA provided that offerors' proposals must identify specific solutions for which research and development was proposed, stating: "Each proposal may contain a maximum of one Higher End receiver solution and two Lower End receiver solutions." PRDA at 4. The PRDA further provided that, "[i]f an offeror proposes multiple receiver solutions, the price proposal shall separately price each solution (Higher End, Lower End)" and "shall include a Statement of Work (SOW) for each proposed receiver solution." PRDA at 5. The PRDA incorporated a "Critical Requirements List" (CRL), dated April 4, 2000, advising offerors that the CRL reflected "the minimum requirements for the Higher End receiver solution," PRDA at 2, and further directing offerors as follows: Offerors proposing a Higher End GPS Ground Receiver solution shall provide a technical description of how the proposed receiver best meets or exceeds the Critical Requirements List, dated 04 Apr 00, found in the Bidders Library. For further definition of the Government's interpretation of a Higher End GPS Ground Receiver, Offerors should refer to [the Draft DAGR Performance Specification] MIL-PRF-DAGR-600, Ver. 4.0, dated 29 Feb 00. Offerors proposing a Lower End solution shall provide a technical description of their proposed receiver(s) and identify, at a minimum, which requirements found in the Critical Requirements List, dated 04 Apr 00, will be met. PRDA at 5. [7] The CRL listed multiple specific requirements, the first of which was: "Be at least as operationally capable as the system it is replacing (PLGR family)." Agency Report, Tab 9, CRL. The CRL also established minimum requirements regarding, among other things, size, battery life, and interface protocols/data message formats.