B-298502; B-298502.2; B-298502.3; B-298502.4; B-298502.5, MD Helicopters, Inc.; AgustaWestland, Inc., October 23, 2006

B-298502; B-298502.2; B-298502.3; B-298502.4; B-298502.5, MD Helicopters, Inc.; AgustaWestland, Inc., October 23, 2006 TITLE: B-298502; B-298502.2; B-298502.3; B-298502.4; B-298502.5, MD Helicopters, Inc.; AgustaWestland, Inc., October 23, 2006 BNUMBER: B-298502; B-298502.2; B-298502.3; B-298502.4; B-298502.5 DATE: October 23, 2006 ********************************************************************************************************************** B-298502; B-298502.2; B-298502.3; B-298502.4; B-298502.5, MD Helicopters, Inc.; AgustaWestland, Inc., October 23, 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: MD Helicopters, Inc.; AgustaWestland, Inc. File: B-298502; B-298502.2; B-298502.3; B-298502.4; B-298502.5 Date: October 23, 2006 John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Stephanie D. Capps, Esq., Tamara F. Dunlap, Esq., Mary Pat Gregory, Esq., and Erin R. Karsman, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for MD Helicopters, Inc., and Craig A. Holman, Esq., David S. Black, Esq., and Eric L. Yeo, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for AgustaWestland, Inc., the protesters. Thomas L. McGovern III, Esq., Michael F. Mason, Esq., Allison D. Pugsley, Esq., and Brian C.J. Berry, Esq., Hogan & Hartson LLP, for EADS North America Defense Co., an intervenor. Brian E. Toland, Esq., Vera Meza, Esq., Roger Cornelius, Esq., and Lawrence Runnels, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. In a best value negotiated procurement for Light Utility Helicopters, protest of a lower technically rated, higher-priced offeror is denied, where the detailed evaluation record evidences that the evaluators performed a comprehensive and thorough evaluation of each offeror's proposal and reasonably determined that the protester's proposal was technically inferior and did not provide the best value to the government. 2. In a best value negotiated procurement for Light Utility Helicopters, protest of a higher technically rated, higher-priced offeror is denied, where the source selection authority considered the significant strengths and weaknesses of each offeror's proposal, and reasonably determined that the protester's higher technically rated proposal was not worth the additional $800 million over the awardee's $3.9 billion proposal. DECISION MD Helicopters, Inc. (MDHI) and AgustaWestland, Inc. (AWI) protest the award of a contract to EADS North America Defense Company (EADS), issued by the Department of the Army under request for proposals No. W58RGZ05-05-R-0519 for Light Utility Helicopters (LUH). We deny the protests. I. BACKGROUND The Army currently uses a mix of rotary wing aircraft to accomplish administrative and logistical missions and to support the Army National Guard. In some instances, these aircraft have reached their serviceable life; in other instances, the aircraft are much more capable than is required for the role and thus are more expensive to operate and maintain. The LUH is intended to replace these helicopters by providing reliable and sustainable general and administrative support in non-hostile, non-combat environments at reduced acquisition and operating costs. The missions of the LUH are primarily light general support (including aerial transport of personnel, supplies, and maintenance support), General Force Medical Evacuation (MEDEVAC), reconnaissance, and test and training support. RFP, Statement of Work (SOW) paras. 1.1, 1.2. To facilitate a "rapid path" to fielding the LUH, the agency sought a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certified, commercially available aircraft to satisfy the LUH requirement, and to rely on contractor logistics support (CLS). RFP sect. A, para. 3. A. The Solicitation The RFP contemplated the purchase of an estimated 352 aircraft over a 10-year contract period, with an initial estimate of 16 aircraft to be purchased during the base year and additional aircraft to be purchased through subsequent option years.[1] In addition to the aircraft, the RFP provided for the purchase of hardware and support, such as MEDEVAC B kits, hoist B kits, CLS, training, contractor field teams, engineering services, and other supporting hardware and services during the course of the contract. RFP sect. A, para. 1; sect. B; amend. 11, Pricing Template. Prices were to be proposed on a fixed-price per unit basis over a projected 10-year period, with cost-reimbursable items for travel, material, and transportation.[2] RFP sect.