Aeroflex Test Solutions, B-295380; B-295380.2, February 7, 2005

Aeroflex Test Solutions, B-295380; B-295380.2, February 7, 2005 TITLE: Aeroflex Test Solutions, B-295380; B-295380.2, February 7, 2005 BNUMBER: B-295380; B-295380.2 DATE: February 7, 2005 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Aeroflex Test Solutions File: B-295380; B-295380.2 Date: February 7, 2005 Gary Marcus, Esq., David E. Wolff, Esq., Norman A. Steiger, Esq., Joseph J. Sisca, Esq., and Henry L. Goldberg, Esq., Goldberg & Connolly, for the protester. Annejanette K. Heckman, Esq., Scott E. Pickens, Esq., and John L. Rice, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop, for OmniPhase Research Laboratories, Inc., an intervenor. Angela J. Cosentino, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of agency's evaluation of proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme. DECISION Aeroflex Test Solutions protests the award of a contract to OmniPhase Research Laboratories, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-04-R-8910, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, in Crane, Indiana, for a quantity of continuous wave illuminator noise test sets (CWINTS) to support the AEGIS shipbuilding program. [1] Aeroflex contends that the evaluation and selection decision were inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation and were unreasonable. We deny the protest. Issued on May 27, 2004, and amended several times, the RFP seeks the production and delivery of a first article unit and an estimated quantity of the CWINTS units to satisfy the Navy and Foreign Military Sales requirements. RFP at 6. The RFP provided for award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with a 5-year ordering period. As amended, the RFP stated as follows: Offerors may submit an alternate proposal and/or take exception to the RFP as part of any offer they submit. The Government will evaluate any alternate proposal, price and other factors considered, [in accordance with] the RFP and Source Selection Plan (SSP). RFP amend. 1, at 2. Proposals were to be evaluated under the following five evaluation factors: (1) capability; (2) logistics; (3) life cycle costs (LCC); (4) past performance; and (5) price.[2] RFP at 60-63. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal represented the "best value" to the government, all factors considered. Id. at 60. The RFP contained detailed proposal instructions and identified specific information that offerors were expected to provide under each evaluation factor to demonstrate compliance with the RFP's performance specifications and statement of work. With regard to price, the RFP required offerors to submit a separate price volume which was to include, among other things, a completed pricing matrix with fixed unit and extended prices inserted for each contract line item number (CLIN), for the base year and each option year. RFP at 2-4. [3] OmniPhase and Aeroflex were the only offerors to submit proposals by the July 19 extended closing date. The agency evaluated the proposals and the contracting officer included both of them in the competitive range. Thereafter, the agency conducted oral and written discussions with OmniPhase and Aeroflex. During discussions, the protester was specifically advised of the following: Aeroflex is reminded that this is a competitive acquisition. Your proposed prices are considered to be too high. It is requested that Aeroflex submit its most favorable pricing to the Government with the FPR [final proposal revision], including more favorable pricing for the first article. This is a business decision; however, award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered [in accordance with] the RFP. AR exh.