DRS Systems, Inc., B-289928.3; B-289928.7, September 18, 2002

DRS Systems, Inc., B-289928.3; B-289928.7, September 18, 2002 TITLE: DRS Systems, Inc., B-289928.3; B-289928.7, September 18, 2002 BNUMBER: B-289928.3; B-289928.7 DATE: September 18, 2002 ********************************************************************** DRS Systems, Inc., B-289928.3; B-289928.7, September 18, 2002 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: DRS Systems, Inc. File: B-289928.3; B-289928.7 Date: September 18, 2002 W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., Kathleen E. Karelis, Esq., Jeffrey C. Walker, Esq., Christine S. Trafford, Esq., Duncan N. Stevens, Esq., and Alexa Zevitas, Esq., Miller & Chevalier, for the protester. Mark D. Colley, Esq., Michael W. Clancy, Esq., Maria Whitehorn Votsch, Esq., Stuart W. Turner, Esq., David S. Black, Esq., Kristin E. Ittig, Esq., and Dorothy C. Slovak, Esq., Holland & Knight, for Raytheon Company, an intervenor. Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., Christine L. Kachan, Esq., Capt. Gary P. Bilski, Susan M. Lewandowski, Esq., and William Reed, Esq., 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 Agency reasonably considered in the evaluation the extent to which the awardee's proposed thermal sight system (for light armored vehicle) exceeded the stated required and desired range performance by furnishing better resolution and discernment of finer details; where a solicitation contains evaluation criteria that allow for qualitative or graduated assessments of proposals, rather than pass/fail evaluations, it is proper to give a proposal more credit for superiority under one of those evaluation criteria. DECISION DRS Systems, Inc. protests the Army Materiel Command's (AMC) award of a contract to the Raytheon Company, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAE07‑01-R-M005, for development and production of an Improved Thermal Sight System (ITSS) for a United States Marine Corps light armored vehicle (LAV), the LAV-25. DRS asserts that the evaluation failed to adequately account for the superiority of its proposed system and was otherwise unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Marine Light Armored Reconnaissance battalions are equipped with the LAV family of vehicles, including the LAV-25, an all-terrain, all-weather wheeled vehicle equipped with a 25mm chain gun and a machine gun. As part of a service life extension and upgrade program for the LAV-25s, which were first introduced in the early 1980s, the current thermal imaging system will be replaced with an ITSS providing thermal (night vision) imaging, day/night sight optics, and an integrated laser range finder (LRF). The ITSS will provide at least a 55-percent increase in target recognition range and a 35-percent increase in target identification range relative to the current system. The ITSS Purchase Description (PD) included in the RFP established required minimum performance ranges for the ITSS thermal channel at 0DEG elevation under 16 conditions, including: (1)-(4) wide field of view detection of target in moderate weather, adverse weather, CL 2 (white phosphorous smoke), or fog oil; (5)‑(8) narrow field of view detection of target under the same four environmental conditions; (9)‑(12) narrow field of view recognition of target under the same four environmental conditions; and (13)-(16) narrow field of view identification of target under the same four environmental conditions. In addition, the PD provided: *It is also desired that the 0DEG elevation range requirements for each of the sixteen given conditions be met or exceeded over the full elevation excursion of the LAV-25 main gun (i.e., -8DEG to 60DEG).* PD P: 3.3.2.2.1.[1] As discussed below, thermal channel performance for these 16 scenarios was calculated for each of six gun elevation angles (‑8DEG, 0DEG, 15DEG, 30DEG, 45DEG, and 60DEG ), for a total of 96 individual scenarios (as well another 96 individual scenarios when performance with electronic boost was considered). The PD required the LRF to display target location range to within +/‑10 meters with a 99‑percent probability of successfully ranging on standard North Atlantic Treaty Organization targets from 200 to 7,995 meters given a visibility of 8,000 meters with no precipitation and to 9,995 meters given a visibility of 23,000 meters with no precipitation. The PD also established a desired accuracy of +/‑5 meters.