B-298582.2; B-298582.3, Aeronautical Instrument & Radio Company, January 10, 2007

B-298582.2; B-298582.3, Aeronautical Instrument & Radio Company, January 10, 2007 TITLE: B-298582.2; B-298582.3, Aeronautical Instrument & Radio Company, January 10, 2007 BNUMBER: B-298582.2; B-298582.3 DATE: January 10, 2007 ********************************************************************************* B-298582.2; B-298582.3, Aeronautical Instrument & Radio Company, January 10, 2007 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: Aeronautical Instrument & Radio Company File: B-298582.2; B-298582.3 Date: January 10, 2007 George N. Grammas, Esq., Robert E. Gregg, Esq., Karen R. Harbaugh, Esq., and Steven D. Tibbetts, Esq., Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP, for the protester. Lars E. Anderson, Esq., Peter A. Riesen, Esq., and Keir X. Bancroft, Esq., Venable LLP, for Tel Instrument Electronics Corporation, an intervenor. Timothy Lasko, Esq., Naval Air Systems 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 1. Protest that agency improperly ignored solicitation preference for commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products in evaluating its and awardee's proposals as comparable is denied where record supports agency's determination that proposals reflect a comparable use of COTS products. 2. Protest that agency's evaluation of awardee's proposal under management subfactor was unreasonably favorable because awardee allegedly did not propose program manager currently working for the firm is denied where record shows that awardee proposed one of its principal current employees as program manager. 3. Protest that agency improperly refused to allow protester to correct alleged mistake in its price is denied where alleged mistake related to use of one set of indirect rates versus another, and protester provided no documentation to support its claimed mistake. DECISION Aeronautical Instrument & Radio Company (AIRCO) protests the award of a contract to Tel Instrument Electronics Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68335-05-R-0128, issued by the Department of the Navy to acquire a quantity of aircraft navigation test sets. AIRCO maintains that the agency misevaluated proposals, improperly relaxed a solicitation requirement for the awardee, and improperly failed to allow it to correct a mistake in its price proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, fixed-price contract for the manufacture of intermediate level (I-level) tactical aircraft navigation (TACAN) test sets (ITATS). Offerors were advised that the agency would evaluate proposals on the basis of price and several non-price considerations and make award on a "best value" basis. Specifically, the RFP advised that proposals would be evaluated under three non-price factors--technical, past performance and experience; that the technical factor was the most important consideration; that the past performance and experience factors combined were slightly less important than the technical factor; that the past performance factor was more important than the experience factor; and that the experience factor was slightly more important than price. Firms were further advised that each non-price evaluation factor included numerous subfactors. As relevant here, the subfactors under the technical factor were technical approach (most important), logistics, and management (equal in weight and slightly less important than technical approach). Offerors were advised that the agency would assign adjectival ratings and risk assessments for each technical factor/subfactor, and that past performance and experience would be assigned risk assessment ratings.[1] The agency received numerous proposals.