B-299145; B-299145.2; B-299145.3, Sikorsky Aircraft Company; Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego, February 26, 2007

B-299145; B-299145.2; B-299145.3, Sikorsky Aircraft Company; Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego, February 26, 2007 TITLE: B-299145; B-299145.2; B-299145.3, Sikorsky Aircraft Company; Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego, February 26, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299145; B-299145.2; B-299145.3 DATE: February 26, 2007 ******************************************************************************************************************************* B-299145; B-299145.2; B-299145.3, Sikorsky Aircraft Company; Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego, February 26, 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: Sikorsky Aircraft Company; Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego File: B-299145; B-299145.2; B-299145.3 Date: February 26, 2007 John W. Chierichella, Esq., Jonathan S. Aronie, Esq., Anne B. Perry, Esq., Keith R. Szeliga, Esq., and Jesse J. Williams, Esq., Sheppard Mullin, for Sikorsky Aircraft Company; Marcia Madsen, Esq., David F. Dowd, Esq., Michael E. Lackey, Jr., Esq., William L. Olsen, Esq., and Luke Levasseur, Esq., Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, and Bucky P. Mansuy, Esq., Lockheed Martin Corporation, for Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego, the protesters. Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., William J. Colwell, Esq., Nicole Owren-Wiest, Esq., Kevin Plummer, Esq., and Rand L. Allen, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, and Mark W. Reardon, The Boeing Company, for The Boeing Company, the intervenor. Michael O'Farrell, Esq., and Bridget E. Lyons, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is sustained where (1) solicitation for combat search and rescue aircraft provided that cost/price would be calculated on the basis of Most Probable Life Cycle Cost, including both contract and operations and support (O&S) costs, (2) solicitation requested detailed information quantifying required maintenance for proposed aircraft, and (3) agency nevertheless normalized cost of maintenance when calculating O&S costs, thereby ignoring potentially lower cost of asserted low maintenance helicopters; once offerors are informed of criteria against which proposals will be evaluated and award made, agency must adhere to those criteria. DECISION Sikorsky Aircraft Company and Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego (LMSI) protest the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to The Boeing Company, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8629-06-R-2350, for the Combat Search and Rescue Replacement Vehicle (CSAR-X). Sikorsky and LMSI challenge the evaluation of proposals and resulting source selection. We sustain the protests. The HH-60 helicopter currently serves as the agency's combat search and rescue aircraft, used to recover downed aircrew and isolated personnel. However, as indicated in the contemporaneous record, and confirmed at the hearing our Office conducted in this matter, the Air Force has determined that its aging fleet of HH-60s has several shortfalls, including: insufficient combat radius; a cabin and payload that are too small; inadequate survivability, including inadequate defensive systems and armament; inadequate adverse weather capability; inadequate battlespace awareness; and, as an aircraft nearing the end of its service life, difficulties in maintaining the aircraft and inadequate availability. Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 2; RFP sect. L 1.1; CSAR-X Final Evaluation Brief, Oct. 21, 2006, at 11; Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 15-16, 208-09, 240-49.