L-3 Communications Westwood Corporation, B-295126, January 19, 2005

B-295126 Jan 19, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights L-3 Communications Westwood Corporation protests the award of contracts to Engineered Electric Company d/b/a/ Fermont and Onan Corporation d/b/a/ Cummins Power Generation under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15P7T-04-R-A001, issued by the Department of the Army to acquire electrical generator sets. L-3 argues that the agency misevaluated proposals, failed to engage in meaningful discussions, and made an unreasonable award decision. We deny the protest. View Decision B-295126, L-3 Communications Westwood Corporation, January 19, 2005 Decision Matter of: L-3 Communications Westwood Corporation File: B-295126 Date: January 19, 2005 Michael A. Hordell, Esq., Charles H. Carpenter, Esq., and Laura L. Hoffman, Esq., Pepper Hamilton, for the protester. Linda L. Shapiro, Esq., A. Ben Foster, Esq., and Mary Catherine Hodes, Esq., Thompson Coburn, for Engineered Electric Company d/b/a/ Fermont; and David T. Ralston, Esq., Philip A. Nacke, Esq., and Aaron C. Chatterjee, Esq., Foley & Lardner, for Onan Corporation d/b/a/ Cummins Power Generation, intervenors. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Esq., William Kampo, Esq., and Frank DiNicola, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest against agency's evaluation of protester's proposal is denied where record shows allegations are without merit, or that alleged evaluation errors did not result in competitive prejudice to protester. DECISION L-3 Communications Westwood Corporation protests the award of contracts to Engineered Electric Company d/b/a/ Fermont and Onan Corporation d/b/a/ Cummins Power Generation under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15P7T-04-R-A001, issued by the Department of the Army to acquire electrical generator sets. L-3 argues that the agency misevaluated proposals, failed to engage in meaningful discussions, and made an unreasonable award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplated award of up to three indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts to design, build, and furnish to the Army a new set of generators (variously sized and configured, and ranging from 5 to 60 kilowatts (kW)). The RFP contemplated performance in three phases. During phase I (to last approximately 13months), the contractors will develop prototype generators, complete a maintenance demonstration, conduct limited testing, and provide limited logistics data; at the conclusion of phase I, the Army will select one of the contractors to continue performance of the remainder of the contract. During phase II (approximately 30 months), the contractor will engage in further developmental and operational testing, perform a logistics demonstration, and develop additional logistics data. During phase III (approximately 38 months), the contractor will engage in production of the generators and associated documentation (such as technical manuals). Phases I and II are to be performed on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis, while phase III is to be performed on a fixed-price basis. The solicitation provided for the award of contracts to the firms submitting proposals deemed to offer the "best value" to the government, considering cost/price and non-cost/price factors as follows: technical, integrated logistics support (ILS) (equal in importance), performance risk (slightly less important than the technical and ILS factors individually), cost/price (slightly less important than performance risk), and small business participation plan (slightly less important than cost/price). The subfactors for the technical factor (in descending order of importance) were: key operational performance parameters; specific design characteristics; design concept; capabilities, plans, personnel and facilities; and configuration management. The subfactors for the ILS factor (all equal in weight) were: supportability analysis; logistics support; maintenance planning; and technical publications. For the noncost/price considerations, the proposals were assigned adjectival ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, susceptible of being found acceptable, or unacceptable, and, for the performance risk factor, low, moderate or high risk. (The cost/price evaluation is not at issue in the protest.) The Army received numerous proposals and, after establishing a competitive range comprised of four proposals, engaged in discussions and solicited and received final proposal revisions (FPR).