B-296194.4; B-296194.5, Foster-Miller, Inc., August 31, 2005

B-296194.4; B-296194.5, Foster-Miller, Inc., August 31, 2005 TITLE: B-296194.4; B-296194.5, Foster-Miller, Inc., August 31, 2005 BNUMBER: B-296194.4; B-296194.5 DATE: August 31, 2005 ************************************************************ B-296194.4; B-296194.5, Foster-Miller, Inc., August 31, 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: Foster-Miller, Inc. File: B-296194.4; B-296194.5 Date: August 31, 2005 Matthew D. Schwartz, Esq., Timothy Sullivan, Esq., and Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for the protester. Capt. Victor G. Vogel, John J. Reynolds, Esq., and Lea E. Duerinck, Esq., 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 1. Under procurement calling for two stages of testing of equipment (chamber testing and field testing), contracting agency properly barred protester from using a programming load for its equipment during the field test different from the programming load that the protester had used during the chamber test; agency's decision was based on a reasonable interpretation of language in the chamber and field test plans as prohibiting changes to the programming load after the chamber test. 2. Protest is denied where protester fails to demonstrate that agency's evaluation of proposal as unacceptable under critical evaluation subfactor and agency's exclusion of proposal from competitive range on that basis were unreasonable. DECISION Foster-Miller, Inc. (FMI) protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range 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 [deleted]. That is, the solicitation seeks improved technology for jamming radio-controlled roadside bombs. 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, fixed-price, 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 descending order of importance: technical performance, price, performance risk, and small business participation. The technical performance factor included the following subfactors, listed in descending 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. One of the Band A requirements pertained to frequency spectrum; another pertained to effective range. 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).