B-298757, Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems, December 8, 2006

B-298757 Dec 08, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems (HS) protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8518-05-R-75369, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the production of large aircraft start system (LASS) units. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably determined its proposal to be technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298757, Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems, December 8, 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: Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems File: B-298757 Date: December 8, 2006 Frederick W. Claybrook, Jr., Esq., Michael D. Newman, Esq., Brian M. Russ, Esq., Thomas A. Kruza, III, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Maj. John G. Terra, Department of the Air Force, 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 Agency reasonably excluded protester's proposal from the competitive range where proposal contained multiple informational deficiencies pertaining to required elements of design even after protester had been given the opportunity to address the deficiencies during discussions. DECISION Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems (HS) protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8518-05-R-75369, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the production of large aircraft start system (LASS) units. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably determined its proposal to be technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The LASS is a four-wheeled, multi-system towable vehicle used to start engines on a variety of Air Force aircraft. LASS units deliver compressed air to start an aircraft's jet turbine engines and provide pneumatic power for the aircraft's various electrical and mechanical systems. The units are used when maintenance and testing functions are conducted on aircraft in hangars and other enclosed areas since they are capable of delivering the required power to the aircraft without posing the danger to personnel and facilities that self-ignition of the jet turbine engines would engender. The units consist of an enclosure assembly, turbine engine assembly, fuel system, electrical system, lubrication system, frame and running gear, and air delivery system. The RFP, which was issued on July 22, 2005, contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a 2-year base period and three 1-year option periods. The RFP contained a detailed purchase description (PD) of the units sought and instructed offerors that their proposals should –provide a narrative description supported by detailed drawings, pictures, sketches, calculations or other items as required to provide evidence that the offered product will meet the technical and performance requirements called for within [the PD].— RFP, Rev. 1, at 26. The solicitation provided for award to the offeror whose technically acceptable proposal represented the best value to the government, taking into consideration proposal risk, past and present performance, and price. With regard to the relative weights of the latter three factors, the RFP instructed that proposal risk and past/present performance were of equal importance, and, when combined, were significantly more important than price. The solicitation explained that to be determined technically acceptable, a proposal needed to demonstrate compliance with solicitation requirements pertaining to design of the enclosure assembly, design and operation of the air flow system, and mobility of the unit.[1] With regard to the enclosure specifically, the RFP explained that for an offeror's design to be determined technically acceptable, its proposal needed to demonstrate –a sound and feasible methodology of how the proposed configuration complies with the requirements of paragraph 3.3 and section 3.4 [of the PD];—[2] in addition, the proposal needed to include –an acceptable narrative description of the chassis design and elevation layouts with major components identified.— Id. at 29.