B-298297, Lakota Technical Solutions, Inc., August 4, 2006

B-298297 Aug 04, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Lakota Technical Solutions, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-06-R-5112, issued by the Naval Sea System Command for Signal Data Processor (SDP) assemblies. Lakota objects to the unwillingness of the agency to warrant the quality and completeness of certain items in the RFPs technical data package (TDP). We deny the protest. View Decision B-298297, Lakota Technical Solutions, Inc., August 4, 2006 Decision Matter of: Lakota Technical Solutions, Inc. File: B-298297 Date: August 4, 2006 Keith W. Fitch for the protester. Andrew C. Saunders, Esq., and Ellen Lynch, Esq., Naval Sea Systems 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. Protest alleging that firm that developed technical data package (TDP) for item to be procured has an unfair informational advantage over other competitors is denied where record establishes that TDP contained sufficient information to permit prospective offerors to formulate proposals. 2. A competitive advantage that derives from an offeror's previous performance under a government contract is not an unfair competitive advantage that agency is required to neutralize. DECISION Lakota Technical Solutions, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-06-R-5112, issued by the Naval Sea System Command for Signal Data Processor (SDP) assemblies. Lakota objects to the unwillingness of the agency to warrant the quality and completeness of certain items in the RFP's technical data package (TDP). We deny the protest. BACKGROUND In 2004, the Navy issued a task order to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) for the design and development of an improved (i.e., smaller, lighter, and less costly) version of its Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) system, of which the SDP assembly is a core component.[1] The order required SAIC to provide –all of the necessary information to fully describe the hardware product and to support life cycle maintenance of the hardware product by the Government.— SAIC Task Order, sect. 3.3.4.3. In addition, the order required SAIC to build and deliver four production representative terminal units to the government for test and evaluation. Id. sect. 3.3.4.1. In 2005, SAIC completed the design and development of the SDP assembly (which, according to the agency, consists of a rectangular box containing 13 circuit card assemblies) and delivered to the Navy documentation consisting of schematics, block diagrams, parts lists, unit specifications, wiring diagrams and what the agency describes as –other information necessary to conduct a 'build to print' competition for the fabrication, assembly and test of the CEC SDP assembly.— Agency Report at 4. In November of 2005, the Navy conducted a physical configuration audit of the SAIC design. According to the agency, a part of that review was to ensure that the TDP adequately described the equipment to be built under the RFP at issue in this protest. The audit resulted in the Navy's requiring multiple corrections to the documentation, which SAIC furnished over the course of the next few months. The Navy issued the RFP on March 23, 2006. The solicitation contemplated award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, with proposals to be evaluated on the basis of the offeror's production and engineering capabilities, past performance, and price. The RFP's statement of work required fabrication of the data processors in accordance with the TDP provided as government-furnished information (GFI). The RFP, as amended, set the closing date for receipt of proposals as June 15. Amend. 2 at 2.[2] DISCUSSION Lakota protested to our Office on May 10, objecting to the agency's failure to furnish as part of the TDP certain information generated by SAIC in its development of the improved SDP. In particular, the protester objected to the agency's failure to furnish –electronic formats of schematics and computer aided design artifacts.— Protest at 2. Lakota complained that the failure of the agency to furnish this information would result in an unequal competition because competitors of SAIC would be required to include the cost of developing this information in their proposed prices, whereas SAIC had already developed the information at government expense. Similarly, the protester objected to the agency's failure to provide equations or software for programmable devices, arguing that competitors of SAIC would be required to develop this information, whereas SAIC would not be. Lakota further objected to the agency's failure to furnish as part of the RFP vendor information obtained by SAIC in its performance of its task order.