B-297378; B-297378.2, Meggitt Safety Systems, Inc., January 12, 2006

B-297378; B-297378.2, Meggitt Safety Systems, Inc., January 12, 2006 TITLE: B-297378; B-297378.2, Meggitt Safety Systems, Inc., January 12, 2006 BNUMBER: B-297378; B-297378.2 DATE: January 12, 2006 ******************************************************************** B-297378; B-297378.2, Meggitt Safety Systems, 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: Meggitt Safety Systems, Inc. File: B-297378; B-297378.2 Date: January 12, 2006 Richard B. Oliver, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for the protester. Robert R. Fleck, Esq., and Robert E. Vollmar II, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's sole-source acquisition of urgently required automatic fire suppression systems is denied where record shows agency adequately investigated protester's capabilities, and reasonably concluded that protester would not be able to timely meet agency's requirements. DECISION Meggitt Safety Systems, Inc. protests the Department of the Army's award of contract No. W56HZV-05-C-0773 to Kidde Technologies, Inc., dba Kidde Dual Spectrum (KDS), for a quantity of automatic fire suppression systems (AFSS) to be installed in the U.S. Marine Corps's light armored vehicles. Meggitt asserts that the agency improperly awarded the contract on a sole-source basis. We deny the protest. The Marine Corps employs a family of light armored vehicles (LAV) used in various military missions throughout the world. Based on experience during the war in Iraq, it was determined that the LAVs required a survivability upgrade consisting of upgraded armor plating and installation of AFSS on all vehicles currently in the agency's inventory, as well as a number of additional LAVs that the agency intends to field in support of additional Marine Corps companies.[1] (The survivability upgrade also includes an upgrade to the vehicles' suspension systems to accommodate the additional weight of the new components, as well as the replacement of certain vehicles' gun turrets.) While the agency had concluded by the beginning of 2005 that the survivability upgrade would be necessary, it did not have any funding with which to pursue the acquisition. Nonetheless, in an effort to obtain market research data to determine the availability of the AFSS, the agency issued a request for information (RFI), with responses due by February 28, 2005. The agency received four responses by the deadline, including the protester's and KDS's (a fifth response was submitted by another concern in April). Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 2-3. The agency evaluated the responses to ascertain the technology readiness level (TRL), or "maturity," of each firm's AFSS. The RFI specified an AFSS with a minimum TRL rating of at least 8 as necessary to meet the agency's requirements, and also expressed, as an objective, an AFSS with a TRL rating of 9. TRL ratings are established consistent with guidance outlined in the Department of Defense Technology Readiness Assessment Deskbook, May, 2005, which describes TRL ratings ranging from 1 to 9, with the TRL 8 rating being defined as "actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration," and a TRL rating of 9 defined as "actual system proven through successful mission operations." Agency Report (AR), exh. 15, at 3-15. The agency determined that the KDS AFSS merited a TRL rating of between 8 and 9. Specifically, the agency found that variants of the KDS AFSS had been fielded on numerous other military vehicles (including the Stryker or LAV 3 vehicles, as well as LAV 2 vehicles furnished under various foreign military sales agreements) and was rated as TRL 9 for those vehicles. However, [deleted] for the LAV A2s, the agency concluded that the TRL rating for the KDS AFSS was essentially somewhere between a TRL rating of 8 and 9. AR, exh. 16, at 4-5; Tr. at 44-45. The record shows that the agency also gave some consideration to the fact that KDS had a current production capability that was adequate to meet the needs of the requirement. Tr. at 43. The agency assigned the Meggitt AFSS a TRL rating of 7. (A TRL rating of 7 is defined as "system prototype demonstration in an operational environment." AR, exh. 15, at 3-15.) The agency stated the basis for this rating as follows: Meggitt has not supplied an AFSS to a U.S. military ground vehicle. Meggitt has supplied components and systems to the commercial aviation industry and to some U.S. military aircraft.