B-297374; B-297374.2, Remington Arms Company, Inc., January 12, 2006

B-297374; B-297374.2, Remington Arms Company, Inc., January 12, 2006 TITLE: B-297374; B-297374.2, Remington Arms Company, Inc., January 12, 2006 BNUMBER: B-297374; B-297374.2 DATE: January 12, 2006 ******************************************************************** B-297374; B-297374.2, Remington Arms Company, Inc., January 12, 2006 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: Remington Arms Company, Inc. File: B-297374; B-297374.2 Date: January 12, 2006 Michael R. Charness, Esq., Amy R. Napier, Esq., and Amanda J. Kastello, Esq., Vinson & Elkins LLP, for the protester. James A. McMillan, Esq., Melissa A. Roover, Esq., and Alan M. Grayson, Esq., Grayson & Kubli, P.C., for Knight's Armament Company, an intervenor. Capt. Victor G. Vogel, Vera Meza, Esq., and Col. Thomas A. Goonan, Department of the Army, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Failure to file a protest within 10 days of a preaward debriefing does not render the protest untimely when the agency, after the preaward debriefing, reinstated protester in the competitive range and continued to consider the protester's proposal for award. 2. Protest of agency's reliability testing of offerors' bid samples is denied where the record shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria; protester's disagreement with agency's evaluation is insufficient to show it was unreasonable. 3. Protest challenging the evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the record, including post-protest explanations of the rationale for the agency's contemporaneous conclusions, establishes that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and in accord with the stated evaluation criteria. 4. Agency's decision to make award based on a higher technically-rated, higher-priced proposal is unobjectionable where the agency reasonably determined that the awardee's greater weapon accuracy, reliability, and higher user assessment were worth the price premium. DECISION Remington Arms Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Knight's Armament Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-05-R-0433, issued by the Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command-Picatinny, Army Materiel Command, Department of the Army, for semi-automatic sniper systems (SASS). Remington argues that the agency's evaluation of offerors' proposals was unreasonable and that the resulting award decision was improper. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The SASS is a semi-automatic, 7.62 millimeter caliber weapon system, designed to address the shortcomings in the Army's older M24, bolt-action sniper weapon system. The intended purpose of the SASS is to support offensive and defensive combat operations by delivering rapid, accurate, long-range, direct fire to kill enemy personnel targets and to penetrate light-armored vehicles. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Source Selection Plan, at 1. The RFP, issued on December 6, 2004, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for 30 SASS units together with spare parts, operator and maintenance training, manuals, and data requirements, as well as options for up to 3,220 additional units. The solicitation established six evaluation factors: bid sample; technical; price; government purpose license rights (GPLR) availability; past performance; and small disadvantaged business (SDB) participation. RFP amend. 5, sect.M, at 82. The RFP informed offerors that bid sample was more important than technical, and that bid sample and technical, when combined into an overall merit rating, were significantly more important than price, GPLR availability, past performance, and SDB participation.[1] Id. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined to be the "best value" to the government, all factors considered. Id. The RFP required offerors to submit SASS bid samples, as well as written proposals addressing the remaining evaluation factors. The solicitation established that bid samples were to be evaluated in three categories: essential criteria not requiring live-fire testing; essential criteria requiring live-fire testing; and "rated requirements." Id. at 83. The essential criteria (a total of 17 items) constituted "pass/fail" requirements: if an offeror's bid sample failed to comply with any essential criterion, the offeror's proposal would be considered technically unacceptable and eliminated from further consideration for award. Id.