B-297691, Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.--TAMAM Division, March 13, 2006

B-297691 Mar 13, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.--TAMAM Division (IAI) protests the award of a contract to FLIR Systems, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-04-R-8543, issued by the Department of the Navy to acquire, on behalf of the United States Coast Guard, a quantity of shipboard infrared visual sensor systems (SIRVSS) to be installed on Coast Guard cutters and other maritime craft. IAI asserts that the Navy misevaluated proposals in connection with its award decision. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297691, Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.--TAMAM Division, March 13, 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: Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.--TAMAM Division File: B-297691 Date: March 13, 2006 Howard J. Stanislawski, Esq., Patrick K. O'Keefe. Esq., and Richard L. Larach, Esq., Sidley Austin LLP, for the protester. John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., and Erin R. Karsman, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter, PLC, for FLIR Systems, Inc., an intervenor. Anthony Condurso, Esq., for the Department of the Navy, 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 rejection of protester's technical proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where record shows that agency reasonably found numerous instances where protester's proposal failed to meet material solicitation requirements. DECISION Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.--TAMAM Division (IAI) protests the award of a contract to FLIR Systems, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-04-R-8543, issued by the Department of the Navy to acquire, on behalf of the United States Coast Guard, a quantity of shipboard infrared visual sensor systems (SIRVSS) to be installed on Coast Guard cutters and other maritime craft. IAI asserts that the Navy misevaluated proposals in connection with its award decision. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite'quantity contract to the firm whose proposal was deemed to offer the government the overall –best value.— Product samples tendered with the proposals were to be evaluated initially using 12 go/no-go criteria. RFP at 15. If a firm's product sample passed the go/no-go evaluation, its proposal and product sample were to be evaluated under four equally-weighted factors (and subfactors): technical evaluation (evaluation of the written technical proposal's performance specification compliance, evaluation of the written technical proposal's statement of work compliance, and product sample evaluation in the field), capability (delivery/ production schedule, logistics capability, and management capability/ relationship with subcontractors), past performance (quality, customer satisfaction, business practices and subcontracting reliability/compliance), and price. Under both the technical evaluation and capability factors, the first subfactors were significantly more important than the second, and the second were more important than the third. The past performance subfactors were listed in descending order of importance. The agency received two proposals, the protester's and the awardee's, and following an initial evaluation, followed by discussions, obtained final proposal revisions (FPR), which were rated as follows: Factors/Subfactors FLIR IAI Go/No-Go Criteria Pass Pass Technical Evaluation Satisfactory/Low Risk[1] Marginal (Unacceptable)/High Risk[2] Performance Spec. Satisfactory/Low Risk Marginal/Medium Risk Statement of Work Satisfactory/Low Risk Satisfactory/Low Risk Product Sample Eval. Marginal/Low Risk Marginal/High Risk Capability Satisfactory/ Low Risk Satisfactory/Low Risk Delivery/Product Schedule Highly Satisfactory/Low Risk Satisfactory/Low Risk Logistics Capability Satisfactory/Low Risk Satisfactory/Low Risk Management Capability Satisfactory/Low Risk Satisfactory/Low Risk Past Performance Favorable/Medium Risk Highly Favorable/Medium Risk Price $45,974,128[3] $39,448,255 AR, exh. 26, at 6, 13. On the basis of these evaluation results, the agency concluded that IAI's proposal was technically unacceptable. In particular, the agency found that IAI's proposed product did not meet numerous requirements of the solicitation and that, overall, its proposal contained a large number of weaknesses and deficiencies.