General Dynamics-Ordnance & Tactical Systems, B-295987; B-295987.2, May 20, 2005

General Dynamics-Ordnance & Tactical Systems, B-295987; B-295987.2, May 20, 2005 TITLE: General Dynamics-Ordnance & Tactical Systems, B-295987; B-295987.2, May 20, 2005 BNUMBER: B-295987; B-295987.2 DATE: May 20, 2005 ********************************************************************** 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: General Dynamics-Ordnance & Tactical Systems File: B-295987; B-295987.2 Date: May 20, 2005 David A. Churchill, Esq., William R. Stoughton, Esq., and Kathy C. Weinberg, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for the protester. Thomas P. Humphrey, Esq., Elizabeth W. Newsom, Esq. and Brian Roemer, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Alliant Techsystems, Inc., an intervenor. Angela J. Cosentino, Esq., Naval Sea Systems Command, for the agency. Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protester's challenge that it should have been afforded the opportunity to comment on negative past performance information, which the protester had not previously had the opportunity to address, is denied where the solicitation indicated that award could be made without the benefit of discussions and there was no basis for the agency to have questioned the validity of the information since it was based on the agency's first-hand experience with the protester's performance. 2. Agency did not trigger requirement to hold discussions with all competitive range offerors by communicating with awardee regarding its subcontracting plan prior to award since these communications did not pertain to evaluation of the awardee's proposal and therefore did not constitute discussions. Rather, the negotiation and ultimate approval of a subcontracting plan involved a question of the awardee's responsibility. DECISION General Dynamics-Ordnance & Tactical Systems, Inc. (GD-OTS) protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to Alliant Techsystems, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-04-R-4217 for the purchase of MK 244 ammunition. GD-OTS argues that the Navy's past performance evaluation was improper; offerors were treated unequally with regard to the conduct of discussions or clarifications; the awardee's proposal was unacceptable for failing to include an adequate small business subcontracting plan; the Navy failed to conduct a price realism analysis; and the Navy's source selection decision was improper. We deny the protest. On August 13, 2004, the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division, issued the RFP requesting offers for "first article and production quantities of linked MK 244 Mod 0 Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) 20MM cartridges in accordance with referenced specifications." Agency Report (AR) at 2-3. The RFP provided for the award of a 5-year, indefinite-quantity contract with fixed unit-prices for specified production quantities. Offerors were permitted to submit alternate offers since the RFP was divided between two lots. Lot 1 included a line item for production of 800 "First Articles" for testing and approval. RFP at 2. "First Articles" were required unless waived for those offerors demonstrating that they had previously delivered the MK 244 or a similar item, and that the item had been accepted by the government. Where waiver was applicable, an offeror could submit a proposal for lot 2, which did not include a line item for "First Articles." While offerors could submit offers for both lots, the RFP specified that the Navy would make award under only one lot. RFP at 4. The RFP provided that award would be made to the firm submitting the proposal "determined most advantageous to the Government, cost/price and other factors considered" based on a consideration of two evaluation factors: past performance and cost/price--with past performance being "significantly more important" than cost/price. RFP at 57. The RFP further advised that the government "may award a contract on the basis of initial offers received, without discussions." RFP at 58. With regard to the evaluation of past performance, the solicitation required each offeror to submit a list of no more than five of its most recent contracts "for the same/similar products." RFP at 58. Offerors were "authorized to provide information relative to any problems encountered on the identified contracts and any corrective actions taken by the offeror." Id.