B-299227; B-299227.2, L-3 Communications Corporation, BT Fuze Products Division, March 14, 2007

B-299227; B-299227.2, L-3 Communications Corporation, BT Fuze Products Division, March 14, 2007 TITLE: B-299227; B-299227.2, L-3 Communications Corporation, BT Fuze Products Division, March 14, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299227; B-299227.2 DATE: March 14, 2007 *********************************************************************************************** B-299227; B-299227.2, L-3 Communications Corporation, BT Fuze Products Division, March 14, 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: L-3 Communications Corporation, BT Fuze Products Division File: B-299227; B-299227.2 Date: March 14, 2007 Louis D. Victorino, Esq., Anne B. Perry, Esq., Marko W. Kipa, Esq., and Jessie J. Williams, Esq., Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, for the protester. Alison L. Doyle, Esq., and Jennifer M. Morrison, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, and Randall W. Sweeney for Canadian Commercial Corporation/SNC Technologies, Inc., the intervenor. Maj. Walter R. Dukes, and John D. Gates, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In a negotiated procurement which provides for award on the basis of a cost/technical tradeoff, a protest challenging the agency's evaluation and source selection decision is denied, where the record establishes the reasonableness of the the agency's judgment that the awardee's superior approach, understanding, and level of expertise outweighed the protester's price advantage. DECISION L-3 Communications Corporation, BT Fuze Products Division, protests the award of a contract to SNC Technologies, Inc., via Canadian Commerical Corporation, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-05-R-0137, issued by the Department of the Army for M314A3 illuminating cartridges.[1] L-3 challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals, conduct of discussions, and source selection decision. We deny the protests. The M314A3 cartridge is a 105-millimeter (mm), visible light, battlefield illumination cartridge intended for signaling or illuminating a designated area. The M314A3 projectile is [a] hollow steel forging with a streamlined ogive,[2] a gilding metal rotating band, and a pinned base plug. The unfuzed projectile (C541) is assembled with a closing plug screwed into the nose for shipping and storage. The projectile cavity contains an expelling charge, illuminating canister, and parachute assembly. The complete projectile assembly is free fitted to a cartridge case. The cartridge case contains a percussion primer assembly and seven individually bagged and numbered propelling charge increments. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Source Selection Evaluation Plan, at 1. The solicitation was restricted to domestic and Canadian sources within the national technology and industrial base.[3] The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for M314A3 cartridges for a base and 4 option years. The base-year requirement was for a two-phased, pre-production optimization effort; under phase one, the contractor would address manufacturing process definition, procedures, and control, and under phase two would provide 890 first article test (FAT) cartridges. RFP sect. B, at 5; Statement of Work at 17. For each of the option years, offerors were required to provide fixed-unit-prices for a range of cartridges up to a maximum quantity of 31,216 cartridges per option year. RFP amend. 3, at 3. The RFP provided for award on the basis of a cost/technical tradeoff and identified the following evaluation factors and subfactors: 1. Technical/management factor[4] a. Process optimization/FAT b. Essential processes, procedures, skills (EPPS) c. Integrated master plan/delivery schedule d. System integration/program management e. Quality 2. Past performance factor a. On-time delivery b. Quality 3. Financial capability factor 4. Price factor 5. Small business utilization factor The technical/management factor was stated to be more important than the past performance factor or the financial capability factor, and the past performance and financial capability factors were stated to be equally important and to be each slightly more important than the price factor. The price factor was stated to be significantly more important than the small business utilization factor. Offerors were informed that all non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than the price factor. RFP sect.