B-298626, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, November 21, 2006

B-298626 Nov 21, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company protests the Department of the Army's exclusion of Lockheed Martin's proposal from further consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. W58RGZ-06-R-0213 to provide joint cargo aircraft (JCA) to the government. Lockheed maintains that it was improper for the agency to conclude that Lockheed's proposal failed to comply with certain mandatory solicitation requirements. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298626, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, November 21, 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: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company File: B-298626 Date: November 21, 2006 Marcia G. Madsen, Esq., David F. Dowd, Esq., Michael E. Lackey, Jr., Esq., and William L. Olsen, Esq., Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, for the protester. Paul W. Searles, Esq., Sharon N. Freytag, Esq., Jacqueline K. Shipchandler, Esq., and Christopher A. Rogers, Esq., Haynes and Boone, LLP, for L-3 Communications Integrated Systems LP, an intervenor. Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., Mark D. Colley, Esq., and Stuart W. Turner, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Raytheon Company, an intervenor. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Esq., and Tina Marie Pixler, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably concluded that protester's proposal failed to comply with solicitation requirements where solicitation required that certain mandatory capabilities be –embodied— in aircraft and required delivery of first aircraft 12 months after award, but protester's proposal provided that it would not deliver aircraft equipped with the mandatory requirements until more than 4 years after award. 2. Agency meaningfully advised protester that its proposal failed to comply with solicitation's mandatory requirements when it asked protester how it intended to provide the mandatory requirements by the time of first aircraft delivery. 3. Agency reasonably limited its evaluation of offerors' production capability to the criterion identified in the solicitation. DECISION Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company protests the Department of the Army's exclusion of Lockheed Martin's proposal from further consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. W58RGZ-06-R-0213 to provide the joint cargo aircraft (JCA) to the government. Lockheed maintains that it was improper for the agency to conclude that Lockheed's proposal failed to comply with certain mandatory solicitation requirements. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 17, 2006, the Army issued solicitation No. W58RGZ-06-R-0213 seeking proposals to provide the JCA[1]--that is, to provide a –multi-functional aircraft, able to perform logistical resupply, casualty evacuation, troop movement, airdrop operations, humanitarian assistance, and Homeland Security support,— with a –primary mission . . . to move mission critical/time sensitive cargo to forward tactical units in remote and austere locations and land or take off from short unimproved runways.— Agency Report (AR), Tab B, RFP at 2.[2] The solicitation further stated that the JCA program –was established to . . . replace the C-26 and C-23 fleet and selected C-12 aircraft beginning in FY [fiscal year] [20]07,— and provided for three 1-year base –ordering periods,— and two 1-year –option ordering periods.— Id. at 2, 4. As amended, the solicitation advised offerors that the first phase in the proposal evaluation process would be an –entry gate— evaluation,[3] during which proposals would be evaluated for compliance with certain –minimum performance standards,— which the solicitation further defined as –mandatory capabilities that shall be embodied in the candidate aircraft.—[4] (Underlining in original.) AR, Tab C, RFP, at 8'9; Tab D, Purchase Description at 1. Further, offerors were advised that the solicitation's entry gate requirements would be evaluated on a –Go/No Go— basis, and that –[o]fferors failing to meet these Go/No Go requirements will be eliminated from the competition.— AR, Tab C, RFP at 8. Finally, the solicitation provided that initial proposals were to be submitted in June 2006, advised offerors that award was intended to be made during fiscal year 2007, and provided that –the first aircraft shall be delivered within 12 months after contract award.— AR, Tab B, at 2; Tab C, at 25; Tab E, at 5. With regard to the entry gate evaluation, the solicitation identified certain aircraft capability requirements to be evaluated, including requirements related to –Communication, Navigation and Surveillance operations in the global Air Traffic Management environment— (CNS/ATM). [5] AR, Tab C, RFP sect. M-3, at 73.