CAE USA, Inc., B-293002; B-293002.2, January 12, 2004

CAE USA, Inc., B-293002; B-293002.2, January 12, 2004 TITLE: CAE USA, Inc., B-293002; B-293002.2, January 12, 2004 BNUMBER: B-293002; B-293002.2 DATE: January 12, 2004 ********************************************************************** CAE USA, Inc., B-293002; B-293002.2, January 12, 2004 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: CAE USA, Inc. File: B-293002; B-293002.2 Date: January 12, 2004 David B. Apatoff, Esq., and Michael E. Ginsberg, Esq., Arnold & Porter, for the protester. Helaine G. Elderkin, Esq., Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Charles S. McNeish, Esq., for Computer Sciences Corporation, the intervenor. Harlan F. Gottlieb, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester*s and awardee*s proposals submitted in response to a solicitation for the design, development, operation and maintenance of an aircraft simulation facility is denied where the record shows that the agency*s evaluation of proposals was reasonable and in accordance with the evaluation criteria, and the protester*s contentions represent only its disagreement with the agency*s evaluation. DECISION CAE USA, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N61339-02-R-0076, issued by the Orlando Naval Air Systems Command, Training Systems Division, for the design, development, operation and maintenance of a simulation training facility. CAE protests the evaluation of proposals and the selection of CSC's higher-priced, higher‑rated proposal for award. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The Army Aviation Center at Fort Rucker, Alabama, currently trains and prepares helicopter pilots for combat missions. The agency explains that the procurement here is the result of its determination that *future flight school pilot simulation training be provided by a long-term (19 1/2 years) services type contract.* Under this RFP, *all aviation simulation trainers are to be built, owned, operated and maintained by a single contractor.* The contractor will also provide *all logistical support, to include implementing technology upgrades into the simulators, scheduling all simulation training and ensuring that all simulators remain current with the latest aircraft hardware and software configurations.* Contracting Officer*s Statement at 2. In short, the purpose of the solicitation is for the Army to acquire *a world-class helicopter pilot simulation training program based upon a contractor *turn-key* type operation.*[2] Agency Report (AR), Tab M, Proposal Analysis Report/Business Clearance Memorandum/Source Selection Document (BCM), at 1. The RFP required that the successful contractor achieve *Initial Operational Capability* (IOC) within 15 months of contract award. To achieve IOC, the contractor must deliver at least 30 percent of the TH-67 simulators proposed (but no fewer than eight), accredited by the agency as ready for training, along with associated training capability. The contractor is also required to achieve a second IOC within 18 months of contract award; in order to achieve this IOC, the contractor must deliver at least six advanced aircraft virtual simulators (AAVS), as well as associated training capability. The contractor is required to reach all aspects of full operational capability within 57 months of contract award. RFP at 37. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price requirements contract, for a base period of 6 months with 19 1-year option periods, to the offeror submitting the proposal representing the best value to the government, based upon the following evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance: technical/management, performance risk/past performance, price, and small disadvantaged business (SDB) participation/small business subcontracting plan. The RFP advised that the technical/management factor was significantly more important than the performance risk/past performance factor, and that all non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.