B-296194.3, TMC Design Corporation, August 10, 2005

B-296194.3 Aug 10, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights TMC Design Corporation protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range prior to field testing of its hardware samples under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15P7T-05-S502, issued by the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Life Cycle Management Command, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, for a Counter Remote Control Improvised Explosive Device (RCIED) Electronic Warfare (CREW) System. We deny the protest. View Decision B-296194.3, TMC Design Corporation, August 10, 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: TMC Design Corporation File: B-296194.3 Date: August 10, 2005 Robert H. Koehler, Esq., Patton Boggs LLP, for the protester. Capt. Victor G. Vogel, U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency properly excluded protester's proposal from the competitive range before field testing protester's hardware system samples where agency reasonably concluded that protester's written proposal contained weaknesses and deficiencies that could not be overcome through performance in field testing, and which rendered the proposal technically unacceptable. DECISION TMC Design Corporation protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range prior to field testing of its hardware samples under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15P7T-05-S502, issued by the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Life Cycle Management Command, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, for a Counter Remote Control Improvised Explosive Device (RCIED) Electronic Warfare (CREW) System. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation seeks to acquire a next-generation CREW system, to be used to prevent and defeat improvised explosive device ambushes [redacted]. The goal is to improve on the capabilities of the currently-fielded CREW system by providing for simultaneous coverage against all RCIED threats at increased ranges, broader frequency coverage extendable to higher frequencies, ease of programmability, reduced size, weight, and power, and built-in capacity for future growth. The RFP, which was issued on February 4, 2005, contemplated the award of one or more 4-year, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity and time-and-materials contracts to the offerors whose proposals were determined most beneficial to the government. The solicitation provided for the evaluation of proposals on the basis of the following four factors, listed in order of importance: technical performance, price, performance risk, and small business participation. The technical performance factor included the following subfactors, listed in order of importance: technical approach, schedule and production capacity, and supportability. The solicitation advised offerors that to receive consideration for award, proposals had to be rated no less than acceptable under the technical performance factor, each of its three subfactors, and the small business participation factor. The RFP's Statement of Objectives identified Band A (required) and Band B (desired) capabilities of the systems to be procured. The RFP advised that the government would evaluate the offeror's ability to meet the Band A requirements, as well as any offered capabilities from Band B. The RFP further advised that failure to meet any Band A requirement would render a proposal unacceptable. Offerors were cautioned that –[u]nsupported promises to comply with contractual requirements will not be sufficient,— and that –[p]roposals must contain supporting rationale for any statements relating to proposed performance.— RFP sect. M-3(C)(1). Similarly, offerors were advised that one of the criteria that would be considered in evaluating their proposals under the technical performance factor and its subfactors was completeness/adequacy of responses and that –[m]ere statements of compliance or repetition of the technical requirements without a complete discussion and analysis [are] unsatisfactory.— Id. The solicitation required the submission of at least two hardware system samples for testing in a laboratory anechoic chamber at FortMonmouth and in the field at Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona, with results of the testing to be considered in the evaluation of proposals under the technical approach subfactor. The solicitation provided that the test results would be used to verify the content of the offeror's written proposal and to help the government assess the risk in the offeror's ability to meet solicitation requirements.