Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc., B-293299.3; B-293299.4, August 3, 2004

Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc., B-293299.3; B-293299.4, August 3, 2004 TITLE: Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc., B-293299.3; B-293299.4, August 3, 2004 BNUMBER: B-293299.3; B-293299.4 DATE: August 3, 2004 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc. File: B-293299.3; B-293299.4 Date: August 3, 2004 William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Benjamin A. Winter, Esq., and Julia M. Kiraly, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. Tenley A. Carp, Esq., and Nicole C. Farrar, Esq., McGuire Woods, for Spiral Aviation Training Company, the intervenor. Sharon H. Sachs, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated technical proposals for flight simulators and instructor training is denied, where evaluation reflected the reasoned judgment of the source selection authority, based on a detailed comparative assessment of strengths and weaknesses in the proposals in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc. (MES) protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to Spiral Aviation Training Company (SATCO), under request for proposals (RFP) No.A N61399-03-R-0084, for two flight training devices (FTD) and instructor training for TC-12B aircraft. MES challenges the reasonableness of the agency's technical evaluation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP provided for award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracta**a**with a base period of 3 years, 8.5 months, and a 1-year option period followed by a 3.5-month option perioda**a**to support the TC-12B command aircraft crew training program by furnishing certified flight instructors, two TCa**12B FTDs, support personnel to operate and maintain the FTDs, and any additional labor required to supervise and administer classroom and simulator training. (The government will provide the approved course curricula/syllabi, as well as facilities at Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Texas.) The FTDs were required to simulate the performance and functional operation of the TC-12B aircraft, meeting at least the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Level 6 FTD certification requirements for fidelity and realism of simulation. In addition, the FTDs were required to have a minimum 200-degree horizontal (including 100-degree left and 100-degree right) by a 40-degree vertical field-of-view, and simulate meteorological and day/night conditions. TC-12B instructors were to possess minimum training, experience, and qualifications--such as being FAA certified or logging a minimum number of flight hours--which the RFP stated were "prerequisite[s]" to performing as TCa**12B instructors. However, the RFP also stated that the government would provide "initial instructor training leading to qualification" at no cost to the contractor. RFP at 27-28. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government considering three evaluation factors (in descending order of importance): (1) technical capability, including equally weighted subfactors for training equipment and instructor personnel, administration, scheduling and quota throughput capabilities, and risk mitigation, delivery and transition plans; (2) past performance; and (3) price. The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated under the technical capability factor for both technical merit and proposal risk, while a performance risk rating would be assigned under the past performance factor. Four proposals were received from three offerors by the closing time. Both MES and SATCO submitted proposals to provide two FTDs and instructor training. MES also submitted an alternate proposal that was essentially the same as its base proposal, but included [REDACTED]. After establishing a competitive range consisting of the three proposals submitted by SATCO and MES, the Navy first conducted discussions and then requested final proposal revisions. A technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated the technical proposals; a past performance evaluation team evaluated the past performance proposals; and a price evaluation team evaluated the price proposals. These teams reported their findings to the source selection evaluation board (SSEB), which assessed the significance of the evaluated proposal strengths and weaknesses.