B-297323, L-3 Systems Company Wescam Sonoma, Inc., December 3, 2005

B-297323 Dec 03, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights L-3 Systems Company Wescam Sonoma, Inc. (Wescam) protests the award of a contract to FLIR Systems, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-04-R-8534, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for electro-optic sensor systems. We dismiss the protest. View Decision B-297323, L-3 Systems Company Wescam Sonoma, Inc., December 3, 2005 Decision Matter of: L-3 Systems Company Wescam Sonoma, Inc. File: B-297323 Date: December 3, 2005 Kathleen Little, Esq., Amanda J. Kastell, Esq., and Amy R. Napier, Esq., Vinson & Elkins LLP, for the protester. John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Tamara F. Dunlap, Esq., and Erin R. Karsman, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter & Allen PLC, for FLIR Systems, 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 Protest is dismissed as untimely where protester learned of independent bases for protest as a result of letter from agency, but raised the issues with our Office more than 10 days later in its comments on the agency report. DECISION L-3 Systems Company Wescam Sonoma, Inc. (Wescam) protests the award of a contract to FLIR Systems, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-04-R-8534, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for electro-optic sensor systems. We dismiss the protest. The RFP, issued on September 17, 2004, contemplated the award of an indefinite'delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract, with fixed unit prices for orders of electro-optic sensor systems over a period a period of 5 years. As amended, the solicitation provided the Navy would order a minimum quantity of one unit and a maximum quantity of 94 units over the 5-year contract term. Award was to be made on a –best value— basis considering three evaluation factors, price, technical, and past performance. The technical factor included three subfactors: (1) product sample; (2) performance specification compliance; and (3) statement of work compliance. As a general matter, offerors were –encouraged to submit multiple offers presenting alternative terms and conditions or commercial items satisfying the requirements of [the] solicitation.— RFP, Instructions to Offerors, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 52.212-1(e). Under a section entitled –Alternate Proposals,— the RFP advised as follows: Offerors may submit more than one proposal, each of which must satisfy the mandatory requirements of the solicitation, including any Benchmark Tests, in order to be considered. As a minimum, one of the proposals submitted must be complete. The alternative proposal(s) may be in an abbreviated form following the same section format, but providing only those sections which differ in any way from those contained in the original proposal. . . . If alternate proposals are submitted, such alternatives will be clearly labeled and identified on the cover page of each separate document. The reason for each alternate and its comparative benefits shall be explained. Each proposal will be evaluated on its own merits. RFP, Instructions to Offerors, FAR sect. 52.212-1 addend. As part of the technical evaluation, offerors were required to submit product samples for testing and evaluation. In this regard, the RFP instructed: (e) Product Samples are to be submitted to the [point of contact (POC)] on page 1 at the same time technical proposal[s] are required . . . . One unit (Electro Optic System) is required as a product sample. If alternate proposals are submitted one product sample per system type is to be provided. The product sample will be tested to ensure compliance with the technical requirements. Id. With regard to price, the RFP provided under –CLIN 0001— for unit prices within –stepladder quantities— for each year of the contract term as follows: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Pricing Quantity 2 $_____ $_____ $_____ $_____ $_____ Pricing Quantity 6 $_____ $_____ $_____ $_____ $_____ Pricing Quantity 11 $_____ $_____ $_____ $_____ $_____ Pricing Quantity 21 $_____ $_____ $_____ $_____ $_____ Pricing Quantity 51 $_____ $_____ $_____ $_____ $_____ RFP amend. 2, CLIN 0001. The Navy received timely proposal submissions from Wescam and FLIR. As required by the RFP, Wescam included a product sample with its initial proposal submission and, after an initial round of evaluations, the agency sought final proposal revisions from the offerors. With its final proposal, Wescam submitted several alternate proposals, but did not submit product samples with any of these alternates.