B-299150; B-299150.2; B-299150.3; B-299150.4; B-299150.5, ITT Electronic Systems, Radar Systems--Gilfillan, February 2, 2007

B-299150; B-299150.2; B-299150.3; B-299150.4; B-299150.5, ITT Electronic Systems, Radar Systems--Gilfillan, February 2, 2007 TITLE: B-299150; B-299150.2; B-299150.3; B-299150.4; B-299150.5, ITT Electronic Systems, Radar Systems--Gilfillan, February 2, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299150; B-299150.2; B-299150.3; B-299150.4; B-299150.5 DATE: February 2, 2007 **************************************************************************************************************************** B-299150; B-299150.2; B-299150.3; B-299150.4; B-299150.5, ITT Electronic Systems, Radar Systems--Gilfillan, February 2, 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: ITT Electronic Systems, Radar Systems--Gilfillan File: B-299150; B-299150.2; B-299150.3; B-299150.4; B-299150.5 Date: February 2, 2007 Philip J. Davis, Esq., Rand L. Allen, Esq., Nicole P. Wishart, Esq., Jon W. Burd, Esq., and John R. Prairie, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Mark D. Colley, Esq., Cameron W. Fogle, Esq., and Stuart W. Turner, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Raytheon Co., an intervenor. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Esq., and Wade L. Brown, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging award of a sole-source contract based on alleged changes to the agency's requirements, which served as the basis for the sole-source determination, is premature where the agency has not finalized any changes to its requirements and there have been no modifications to the sole-source contract reflecting any of the changed requirements alleged by the protester. DECISION ITT Electronic Systems, Radar Systems--Gilfillan (ITT) protests the decision of the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM), Department of the Army, to award a sole-source contract to Raytheon Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. W31P4Q-05-R-0338, for Air Traffic Navigation, Integration and Coordination System (ATNAVICS) and Fixed-Base Precision Approach Radar (FBPAR) hardware, spares, and first article testing, as well as FBPAR installation, site survey, site design, system refurbishment and engineering services for fiscal years 2006 through 2010. We dismiss the protest. On August 3, 2005, the Army posted a pre-solicitation notice on the FedBizOpps website announcing its intention to award a sole-source ATNAVICS production contract to Raytheon and informed other potential sources of their right to submit offers for consideration by the Army. Proposals were due October 3, 2005. No source other than Raytheon requested or received a copy of the RFP or submitted a proposal. The contemplated sole-source contract for Raytheon was a follow-on contract to a competitively awarded ATNAVICS contract, awarded to Raytheon in 1995. The ATNAVICS system, as described in the sole-source RFP, is essentially a mobile air traffic navigation system, which is configured on two High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) (referred to by the parties as HUMVEEs) and can be transported on a single C-130 or larger aircraft. Specifically, the ATNAVICS "sensor subsystem,"[1] which includes all essential radar components, is mounted on an "expanded capacity variant (ECV)" HUMVEE and the ATNAVICS "operations shelter," a structure from which personnel operate the ATNAVICS system, is carried and deployed by the "heavy variant (HV)" HUMVEE. Each HUMVEE also pulls a trailer that carries a power generator. In its protest, ITT does not challenge the Army's conclusion that Raytheon was the only firm capable of meeting the ATNAVICS requirements, as those requirements were identified in the sole-source RFP. Moreover, ITT concedes that its own mobile air traffic control sensor subsystem cannot be mounted on a single HUMVEE, and that its system cannot be transported on a single C-130 aircraft. Protest 1 at 6. Rather, ITT's protest allegations flow from its assertion that the deployment requirements for the ATNAVICS system have materially changed from those stated in the RFP, thereby undermining the basis for the Army's sole-source award determination. In this regard, ITT contends that the Army's initiative to "up-armor" its HUMVEEs imposes severe weight restrictions on the HUMVEEs utilized to move the ATNAVICS, which have effectively eliminated the above-noted single HUMVEE and single C-130 requirements.