American Systems Corporation, B-292755; B-292755.2, December 3, 2003

American Systems Corporation, B-292755; B-292755.2, December 3, 2003 TITLE: American Systems Corporation, B-292755; B-292755.2, December 3, 2003 BNUMBER: B-292755; B-292755.2 DATE: December 3, 2003 ********************************************************************** American Systems Corporation, B-292755; B-292755.2, December 3, 2003 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: American Systems Corporation File: B-292755; B-292755.2 Date: December 3, 2003 Joseph G. Billings, Esq., for the protester. K. Lisa Daniel, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably rated proposal as marginal/high risk for technical factor under solicitation requesting proposals for training systems devices and curricula, where the proposal failed to provide sufficient details of its written instructional system development processes and failed to provide sufficient details in its sample task response. 2. Discussions were not misleading, even though, on the basis of an incorrect assumption, protester misinterpreted a particular discussion question, where a reasonably diligent offeror would have correctly understood, or requested clarification of, the agency discussion question. 3. Agency reasonably made one of the awards under solicitation contemplating multiple awards of indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts to an offeror whose marginal proposal contained one significant weakness, but not to an offeror whose marginal proposal contained two significant weaknesses under the same technical subfactor (with other aspects of the evaluation being relatively equal), where the agency reasonably determined this was a discriminator between the technical merits of the two proposals that justified award to one and not the other. DECISION American Systems Corporation (ASC) protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. N61339-02-R-0063, issued by the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, for training systems devices and curricula. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a partial small business set-aside, was to procure trainer/training systems and technology-based curricula. The RFP contemplated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) task order contracts for an 8‑year period for two separate contractual lots. Lot I is not at issue here because the protester submitted a proposal only for Lot II. Lot II, involving technology-based curricula, required the contractor to accept task orders to perform planning, analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation, support, maintenance, modification, modeling and simulation, and management of technology-based training products. The RFP provided for award of contracts for Lot II to those offerors with proposals representing the *greatest value,* considering three evaluation factors: technical, past performance, and price. The technical factor was comprised of two equally weighted subfactors, instructional systems development (ISD) and management. The technical and past performance factors were of equal importance and when combined were considered significantly more important than price. The RFP required proposals to describe the offeror*s formal, written, documented and in-place processes that will be used in the performance of orders under the ID/IQ contract, and noted that *the Government is concerned that awardees under the [contract] be organizationally mature with established processes and procedures that will ensure repeatable success in performance.* RFP S: L.3.2. In addition, offerors were required to respond to a sample task, primarily at an oral presentation. Under the technical factor, the RFP stated that the proposals would be evaluated to determine the offeror*s ability to plan, analyze, design, develop, implement, evaluate, support, maintain, modify, and manage technology-based training products. Under the ISD subfactor, the RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated *to determine the offeror*s ability to provide established and proven processes to reliably ensure the successful completion of prospective orders,* and that the *Sample Task will be evaluated to ensure incorporation of these processes.*[1] RFP S: M.3.2(a). In responding to the sample task, offerors were required to demonstrate understanding and application of the ISD process to the necessary courseware development encompassed by this solicitation.