B-298626.2, B-298626.3, Raytheon Company, Space and Airborne Systems, September 27, 2007

B-298626.2, B-298626.3, Raytheon Company, Space and Airborne Systems, September 27, 2007 TITLE: B-298626.2, B-298626.3, Raytheon Company, Space and Airborne Systems, September 27, 2007 BNUMBER: B-298626.2, B-298626.3 DATE: September 27, 2007 **************************************************************************************** B-298626.2, B-298626.3, Raytheon Company, Space and Airborne Systems, September 27, 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: Raytheon Company, Space and Airborne Systems File: B-298626.2, B-298626.3 Date: September 27, 2007 Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., David S. Black, Esq., Michele Mintz Brown, Esq., Jennifer A. Short, Esq., and Allison V. Feierabend, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Esq., Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq., Darren H. Lubetzky, Esq., and Edward Jackson, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, an intervenor. Brian E. Toland, Esq., and Tina Marie Pixler, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Solicitation reasonably put protester on notice that performance of the solicitation's aircraft "service ceiling" threshold capabilities would be considered in evaluation of proposals. 2. Agency was reasonably concerned with protester's proposed approach to performing "service ceiling" aircraft threshold capabilities in that the approach involved protester's application of a "new operational mode" relying on [deleted]. 3. Agency reasonably evaluated protester's proposal as "marginal" under the air vehicle subfactor, and as creating "high performance risk," where protester failed to provide data from engine manufacturer addressing the impact of protester's "new operational mode." 4. Protester's assertion that awardee's proposal contemplated use of [deleted] similar to that of the protester's is without merit where record shows that awardee's aircraft was able to perform threshold capabilities without [deleted], that use of [deleted] was relied on by awardee to expedite task performance, and that awardee's proposed use of [deleted] was consistent with the existing manufacturer documentation for the aircraft engines. 5. Agency properly assigned only adjectival ratings to offerors' life cycle costs where solicitation expressly advised offerors that comparison of numerical cost values associated with life cycle costs would not be a "driver" in the source selection decision. DECISION Raytheon Company, Space and Airborne Systems, protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W58RGZ-06-R-0213, to provide the joint cargo aircraft (JCA) to the government.[1] Raytheon maintains that the agency improperly evaluated various aspects of Raytheon's and L-3's proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND In March 2006, the Army issued solicitation No. W58RGZ-06-R-0213, seeking proposals to provide the JCA--that is, to provide a "multifunctional aircraft, able to perform logistical resupply, casualty evacuation, troop movement, airdrop operations, humanitarian assistance, and Homeland Security support," with a "primary mission . . . to move time-sensitive/mission-critical cargo to forward tactical units in remote and austere locations."[2] Agency Report (AR), Tab 25, Performance Work Statement (PWS) para. 1.1. The solicitation contemplates award of a fixed-price requirements contract with three 1-year base ordering periods and two 1-year option ordering periods. Section M of the solicitation advised offerors that award would be made on a "best value" basis and established the following evaluation factors: technical, [3] price,[4] logistics, management/production and past performance. [5] AR, Tab 2, RFP para. M-3 (1.1). The solicitation also contained a purchase description (PD) that established certain aircraft performance requirements.[6] Among others, the PD contained headings of "self deployment," "enhanced takeoff and landing performance," "cruise airspeed," and "service ceiling" under which the particular capabilities the government sought were identified. AR, Tab 20, PD paras. 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 5.3.6.