Continental RPVs, B-292768.6, April 5, 2004

B-292768.6 Apr 05, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency's source selection decision was flawed is denied where the record reveals that the agency reasonably explained why the technical advantages offered by the awardee's proposal were worth its higher price. 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. Price factors were of equal importance. That the management factor was significantly less important than the other factors. /1/ The solicitation also stated the relative importance of the subfactors within each evaluation factor. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous. View Decision Continental RPVs, B-292768.6, April 5, 2004 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys 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 challenges the adequacy of the agency's revised best value determination, which the agency performed in response to our decision of December 11, 2003, sustaining Continental's prior related protest. Continental RPVs, B-292768.2, B-292768.3, Dec. 11, 2003, 2003 CPD Para. ____. We deny the protest. 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) Sec. 1.1. 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. Resources, Personnel Skills and Staffing 2. Operational . A. Operational Approach . B. Equipment Resourcing . C. Surge (Premium Hour) Operations . D. Resources, Personnel Skills and Staffing 3. Management . A. Organization . B. Resources . C. Personnel 4. Past Performance 5. Price The RFP established that the technical, operational, past performance, and price factors were of equal importance, and that the management factor was significantly less important than the other factors. /1/ The solicitation also stated the relative importance of the subfactors within each evaluation factor. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous, or the "best value," to the government, all factors considered. RFP Sec. M-2.a. Four offerors, including Continental and Griffon, submitted proposals by the March 5, 2003 closing date. An Army technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated offerors' proposals under the technical, operational, and management factors using an adjectival rating system: outstanding/very low risk, highly satisfactory/low risk, satisfactory/acceptable risk, marginal/acceptable with some risk, and unacceptable/ unacceptable risk. The agency also employed a performance risk assessment group (PRAG) to separately evaluate offerors' past performance, using ratings of high risk, medium risk, low risk, and neutral. After receipt of final proposal revisions from Continental and Griffon, the Army's final evaluation ratings were as follows: Factor Griffon Continental Technical Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory Operational Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory Management Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory Past Performance Low Risk Low Risk Evaluated Price $ 36,116,633 $ 30,058,203 AR, Tab U-1, Source Selection Decision, Aug. 15, 2003, at 2-7. The contracting officer determined that Griffon's superiority under the technical, operational, and management factors, combined with its low risk past performance assessment (equal to that of Continental), outweighed the price difference and made Griffon's proposal most advantageous to the government. /2/ Id. at 8.