B-299145.5; B-299145.6, Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego; Sikorsky Aircraft Company, August 30, 2007

B-299145.5; B-299145.6, Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego; Sikorsky Aircraft Company, August 30, 2007 TITLE: B-299145.5; B-299145.6, Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego; Sikorsky Aircraft Company, August 30, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299145.5; B-299145.6 DATE: August 30, 2007 ******************************************************************************************************************* B-299145.5; B-299145.6, Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego; Sikorsky Aircraft Company, August 30, 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: Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego; Sikorsky Aircraft Company File: B-299145.5; B-299145.6 Date: August 30, 2007 John W. Chierichella, Esq., Anne B. Perry, Esq., Jonathan S. Aronie, Esq., Keith R. Szeliga, Esq., Jesse J. Williams, Esq., and George T. Coller, Esq., Sheppard Mullin, for Sikorsky Aircraft Company; Marcia G. Madsen, Esq., David F. Dowd, Esq., Michael E. Lackey, Jr., Esq., Roger D. Waldron, Esq., and Luke P. Levasseur, Esq., Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, and Bucky P. Mansuy, Esq., for Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego, the protesters. Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., William J. Colwell, Esq., Nicole Owren-Wiest, Esq., and Kevin J. Plummer, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, and Mark W. Reardon, Esq., for The Boeing Company, the intervenor. Bryan R. O'Boyle, Esq., Michael O'Farrell, Esq., Bridget E. Lyons, Esq., Maj. Karen Douglas, Douglas Campbell, Esq., and Col. Thomas Doyon, 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 agency amended solicitation after prior sustained protest to eliminate consideration of the unique aspects of the proposed helicopters (including maintenance requirements) in calculating certain aspects of the evaluated Most Probable Life Cycle Cost, substituting a subjective consideration of potential maintenance efficiencies for the prior direct impact upon evaluated cost, but nevertheless precluded offerors from generally revising their proposals; it is fundamental that, where an agency revises the criteria against which offers are to be evaluated or otherwise materially changes the solicitation's evaluation scheme, offerors must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the revised criteria or evaluation scheme. DECISION Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego (LMSI) and Sikorsky Aircraft Company protest the corrective action undertaken by the Department of the Air Force in response to our decision, Sikorsky Aircraft Co.; Lockheed Martin Sys. Integration-Owego, B-299145 et al., Feb. 26, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 45, in which we sustained the protests of LMSI and Sikorsky 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). [1] We sustained the protests on the basis that the Air Force's evaluation of operations and support (O&S) costs was inconsistent with the evaluation methodology 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. LMSI and Sikorsky principally allege that, although the amendment to the solicitation issued by the agency in response to our decision materially altered the stated evaluation methodology, it limits the extent to which offerors are permitted to revise their proposals; the protesters maintain that, given the change in the evaluation methodology, the limitation on revisions is unreasonable. We sustain the protests. INITIAL DECISION The solicitation provided for award, on a "best value" basis, of a contract for the development, demonstration, and production of the CSAR-X aircraft, which is intended to replace the HH-60 helicopter, the agency's current combat search and rescue aircraft. Boeing responded to the solicitation by proposing the twin-rotor HH-47 helicopter, LMSI proposed the single-rotor US101 helicopter, and Sikorsky proposed the single-rotor S-92 helicopter. Based on the evaluation of final proposal revisions (FPR), the source selection authority (SSA) determined that Boeing's proposal represented the best value. The ensuing award to Boeing was challenged in protests filed in our Office by LMSI and Sikorsky. We sustained the protests, finding that the Air Force's evaluation of O&S costs was inconsistent with the RFP.