United Defense LP, B-286925.3; B-286925.4; B-286925.5, April 9, 2001

United Defense LP, B-286925.3; B-286925.4; B-286925.5, April 9, 2001 TITLE: United Defense LP, B-286925.3; B-286925.4; B-286925.5, April 9, 2001 BNUMBER: B-286925.3; B-286925.4; B-286925.5 DATE: April 9, 2001 ********************************************************************** United Defense LP, B-286925.3; B-286925.4; B-286925.5, April 9, 2001 Decision Matter of: United Defense LP File: B-286925.3; B-286925.4; B-286925.5 Date: April 9, 2001 Thomas C. Papson, Esq., James J. Gallagher, Esq., Richard B. Oliver, Esq., Richard P. Castiglia, Jr., Esq., Robert R. Plank, Esq., and Dana B. Pashkoff, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo; and Allan J. Joseph, Esq., David F. Innis, Esq., and Scott M. Rennie, Esq., Rogers, Joseph, O'Donnell & Quinn, for the protester. Marcia G. Madsen, Esq., Anthony J. Trenga, Esq., John L. Rice, Esq., David F. Dowd, Esq., Charles F. B. McAleer, Jr., Esq., Michael J. Farley, Esq., Cameron S. Hamrick, Esq., and Christine S. Trafford, Esq., Miller & Chevalier; and David A. Churchill, Esq., Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq., Paul W. Cobb, Jr., Esq., Nicole G. Berner, Esq., Robert S. Nichols, Esq., and Geoffrey A. Barrow, Esq., Jenner & Block, for GM GDLS Defense Group LLC, an intervenor. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Esq., Craig E. Hodge, Esq., Susan M. Lewandowski, Esq., Robert A. Maskery, Esq., William C. Reed, Esq., and Dominic A. Femino, Jr., Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest against award of single contract for both infantry carrier vehicle (ICV) and mobile gun system (MGS) variants of new family of armored vehicles is denied where (1) awardee's proposal for ICV, accounting for approximately 89 percent of new vehicles in contemplated brigade, was reasonably evaluated as offering significant performance and supportability advantages which outweighed protester's schedule and price/cost advantages, and (2) although awardee's schedule for deploying MGS was very disadvantageous and evaluation did not fully reflect certain disadvantages with respect to ammunition storage in awardee's MGS, its proposal nevertheless offered other performance and supportability advantages, and selection of awardee's MGS would result in commonality between ICV and MGS, such that award for both variants was not unreasonable. DECISION United Defense LP (UDLP) protests the U.S. Army Materiel Command's (AMC) award of a contract to GM GDLS Defense Group LLC (GM/GDLS), under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAE07-00-R-M032, for the Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV). UDLP challenges the evaluation of proposals, asserting that the evaluation and resulting cost-technical tradeoff were inconsistent with the evaluation scheme set forth in the RFP and were otherwise unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND RFP According to the RFP, and the agency's overall statement of its requirements in its "Operational Requirements Document for a Family of Interim Armored Vehicles" (ORD), incorporated into the solicitation, there is an "an immediate and urgent need for an air transportable [Brigade Combat Team (BCT)], capable of deployment anywhere on the globe in a combat ready configuration." RFP, Executive Summary; Operational Requirements Document at 1. In this regard, the agency states in "The Interim Brigade Combat Team: Organizational and Operational Concept" (O&O Concept), also incorporated into the solicitation, that Army light forces can deploy quite rapidly, but lack the lethality, mobility, and staying power necessary to ensure decision, while Army mechanized forces possess substantial lethality and staying power, but require too much time to deploy. O&O Concept at 4. The contemplated Interim BCT (IBCT), with which the Army intends to address this perceived shortfall in capability, was generally described in the Operational Requirements Document as "a full spectrum, combat force" which has utility in all operational environments, but "is designed and optimized primarily for employment in small scale contingency (SSC) operations in complex and urban terrain, confronting low-end and mid-range threats that may employ both conventional and asymmetric capabilities." Operational Requirements Document at 2. According to the Operational Requirements Document, the IBCT "deploys very rapidly, executes early entry, and conducts effective combat operations immediately on arrival to prevent, contain, stabilize, or resolve a conflict through shaping and decisive operations"; "participates in major theater war (MTW), with augmentation, as a subordinate maneuver component within a division or corps, in a variety of possible roles"; and "participates with appropriate augmentation in stability and support operations (SASO) as an initial entry force and/or as a guarantor to provide security for stability forces by means of its extensive combat capabilities." Id.