B-299145.4, Sikorsky Aircraft Company; Lockheed Martin Systems, March 29, 2007

B-299145.4 Mar 29, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Department of the Air Force requests reconsideration of our decision, Sikorsky Aircraft Co.; Lockheed Martin Sys. Integration-Owego, B-299145 et al., Feb. 26, 2007, 2007 CPD___, asking that we decide issues that were not addressed in that decision. In our decision, we sustained the protests of Sikorsky Aircraft Company and Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego (LMSI) against 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). We sustained the protests on the basis that the Air Force's evaluation of operations and support (O&S) costs was inconsistent with the approach set forth in the solicitation. We recommended that the Air Force amend the solicitation to clarify its intent with respect to the evaluation of O&S costs, reopen discussions with offerors consistent with our decision, and then request revised proposals. The protesters had raised numerous additional challenges to the evaluation of proposals, but we viewed them as academic, and therefore did not address them. However, the Air Force has requested that we address the additional issues in order to "facilitate an expeditious and comprehensive approach for completing the CSAR-X source selection." Air Force Letter to GAO, Mar. 12, 2007. Essentially, the agency desires to implement corrective action that will correct any deficiencies identified by GAO in the procurement. In these circumstances, given the agency's urgent and important need for a new combat search and rescue aircraft, our Office will address the additional arguments. We sustain the protests. View Decision B-299145.4, Sikorsky Aircraft Company; Lockheed Martin Systems, March 29, 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''Request for Reconsideration File: B-299145.4 Date: March 29, 2007 John W. Chierichella, Esq., Jonathan S. Aronie, 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'Oswego, 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, Esq., 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 Agency reasonably determined that protester's recent, seriously deficient performance on a highly relevant contract for a similar aircraft warranted a past performance rating of little confidence, notwithstanding that protester also had very good performance on another highly relevant contract. DECISION The Department of the Air Force requests reconsideration of our decision, Sikorsky Aircraft Co.; Lockheed Martin Sys. Integration'Owego, B'299145 et al., Feb. 26, 2007, 2007 CPD para. ___, asking that we decide issues that were not addressed in that decision. In our decision, we sustained the protests of Sikorsky Aircraft Company and Lockheed Martin Systems Integration'Owego (LMSI) against 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). We sustained the protests on the basis that the Air Force's evaluation of operations and support (O&S) costs was inconsistent with the approach set forth in the solicitation. [1] We recommended that the Air Force amend the solicitation to clarify its intent with respect to the evaluation of O&S costs, reopen discussions with offerors consistent with our decision, and then request revised proposals. The protesters had raised numerous additional challenges to the evaluation of proposals, but we viewed them as academic, and therefore did not address them. However, the Air Force has requested that we address the additional issues in order to –facilitate an expeditious and comprehensive approach for completing the CSAR-X source selection.— Air Force Letter to GAO, Mar. 12, 2007. Essentially, the agency desires to implement corrective action that will correct any deficiencies identified by GAO in the procurement.