L-3 Communications, KDI Precision Products, Inc.�, B-290091; B-290091.2; B-290091.3, June 14, 2002

L-3 Communications, KDI Precision Products, Inc.�, B-290091; B-290091.2; B-290091.3, June 14, 2002 TITLE: L-3 Communications, KDI Precision Products, Inc.�, B-290091; B-290091.2; B-290091.3, June 14, 2002 BNUMBER: B-290091; B-290091.2; B-290091.3 DATE: June 14, 2002 ********************************************************************** L-3 Communications, KDI Precision Products, Inc. , B-290091; B-290091.2; B-290091.3, June 14, 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: L-3 Communications, KDI Precision Products, Inc. File: B-290091; B-290091.2; B-290091.3 Date: June 14, 2002 Louis D. Victorino, Esq., James J. McCullough, Esq., Jonathan S. Aronie, Esq., and Abram J. Pafford, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for the protester. John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., S. Jun Jin, Esq., and W. Stephen Dale, Esq., Smith, Pachter, McWhorter & Allen, for Alliant Precision Fuze Company, an intervenor. Warren D. Leishman, Esq., and Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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 determined that awardee's performance of certain prior contracts was not relevant for purposes of evaluating past performance, where contracts involved more complex and challenging technology than that under the solicitation; agency reasonably relied instead principally on awardee's performance on predecessor contract for the solicited work. DECISION L-3 Communications, KDI Precision Products, Inc. (KDI) protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to Alliant Precision Fuze Company, under request for proposals No. F08635-01-R-0073, for production of DSU-33 proximity sensors. KDI challenges the evaluation of past performance and the agency's assessment of program risk based on KDI's proposal of significant no‑cost-to‑the-government work. We deny the protest. The DSU-33 is a nose-mounted, radio frequency proximity sensor for general purpose bombs and the Joint Direct Attack Munition. The sensor determines where the ground is relative to the weapon system through receipt of the return of a signal transmitted to the ground; at a predetermined height (referred to as *height‑of‑burst*), normally 20 feet above the ground, the sensor provides a fire pulse to a separate fuze, which in turn initiates detonation. The RFP provided for award of a primarily fixed-price contract for the production of up to 72,000 DSU-33 proximity sensors, including a 12,000-unit maximum basic quantity, with five 12,000-unit maximum option quantities. The contemplated contract is a follow-on contract to a production contract awarded to Alliant in 1998. Offerors were allowed to propose to build either to the current DSU-33 technical data package (referred to as *baseline*) or to an alternate design (referred to as *alternate baseline*). Award was to be made to the offeror whose conforming proposal represented the best value, and demonstrated that the offeror can accomplish the RFP requirements in a manner most advantageous to the government. The RFP provided for proposals to be evaluated under the following four equally weighted factors: (1) past performance on current and relevant contracts; (2) mission capability, including (in descending order of importance) subfactors for form, fit and function, manufacturing capability, systems engineering, testing, schedule, and small disadvantaged business subcontracting; (3) proposal risk (to be assigned at the mission capability subfactor level only); and (4) cost/price. Four proposals from three offerors were received in response to the RFP--Alliant and a third firm submitted baseline proposals, while KDI submitted both a baseline and an alternate baseline proposal. All offerors were included in the competitive range and, after discussions, were requested to submit final proposal revisions. Alliant's and KDI's final baseline proposals received the highest technical and overall ratings. While the evaluated price ($[DELETED]) of KDI's final baseline proposal was lower than Alliant's ($[DELETED]), the source selection authority (SSA) noted that Alliant's proposal was superior under the collectively more important non-price factors. In this regard, Alliant was the incumbent contractor, and its proposal was rated exceptional/high confidence in past performance, while KDI's was rated only very good/significant confidence.