Continental RPVs, B-292768.2; B-292768.3, December 11, 2003

Continental RPVs, B-292768.2; B-292768.3, December 11, 2003 TITLE: Continental RPVs, B-292768.2; B-292768.3, December 11, 2003 BNUMBER: B-292768.2; B-292768.3 DATE: December 11, 2003 ********************************************************************** Continental RPVs, B-292768.2; B-292768.3, December 11, 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: Continental RPVs File: B-292768.2; B-292768.3 Date: December 11, 2003 Richard B. Oliver, Esq., and Gregory M. Murphy, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge, for the protester. Capt. Tami L. Dillahunt and Mary M. Townsend, Esq., Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated the offerors* technical proposals under a solicitation for a remotely piloted vehicle target (RPVT) system and services is denied where the record shows that the agency*s evaluation of proposals was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, and the protester*s contentions represent only its disagreement with the agency*s evaluation. 2. Protest that contracting agency improperly relaxed solicitation*s technical requirement that offerors be able to perform eight RPVT operations concurrently by allowing the awardee to propose to support only seven concurrent RPVT operations is denied where the agency reasonably determined that the awardee*s proposal met the solicitation requirement. 3. Agency*s evaluation of the offerors* past performance, and the source selection decision based upon that evaluation, were not reasonable where the agency evaluated the protester and awardee as each being of low risk under the performance evaluation criterion without the record containing any basis upon which the agency could reasonably have determined that the awardee*s past performance was, in accordance with the terms of the solicitation, the *same or similar* to the solicitation requirements for which the protester was the incumbent contractor. DECISION Continental RPVs protests the award of a contract to Griffon Aerospace, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAH01-02-R-0158, issued by the Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM), Department of the Army, for the acquisition of an aerial remotely piloted vehicle target (RPVT) system and services. Continental argues that AMCOM*s evaluation of the proposals, including the agency*s evaluation of Griffon*s past performance, was unreasonable and that the resulting award decision was improper. We deny the protests in part and sustain them in part. RPVTs, essentially radio-controlled, sub-scale aerial targets, are a means by which the Army and other United States military services provide training to short range air defense units in countering airborne threats at a reasonable cost; specifically, RPVTs permit live fire engagements by forces equipped with various missile and gun weapons systems. Statement of Work (SOW) S: 1.1. While the Army has procured sub-scale aerial targets for many years, the requirements here were significantly expanded beyond those of previous procurements, including newly defined performance parameters that necessitated the redesign of the RPVT target aircraft. Contracting Officer*s Statement at 2. In addition to the design and production of an estimated 400 RPVTs annually, the SOW also required the successful offeror to provide extensive operational support services (e.g., flight operations, maintenance services, equipment security) and engineering services for the RPVT system. The RFP, issued on October 31, 2002, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract (with some cost reimbursement items) for a base year with four 1-year options. The solicitation identified the following evaluation factors and subfactors: +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |1. Technical | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| | |A. Design Approach | | |-------------------------------------------------------| | |B. Production Approach | | |-------------------------------------------------------| | |C. Engineering Services | | |-------------------------------------------------------| | |D.