B-299675.2; B-299675.3; B-299675.4, General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., May 30, 2008

B-299675.2; B-299675.3; B-299675.4, General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., May 30, 2008 TITLE: B-299675.2; B-299675.3; B-299675.4, General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., May 30, 2008 BNUMBER: B-299675.2; B-299675.3; B-299675.4 DATE: May 30, 2008 *********************************************************************************** B-299675.2; B-299675.3; B-299675.4, General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., May 30, 2008 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: General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc. File: B-299675.2; B-299675.3; B-299675.4 Date: May 30, 2008 Raymond Fioravanti, Esq., General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc.; David A. Churchill, Esq., Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq., and Mushtaq Z. Gunja, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for the protester. Anne B. Perry, Esq., John W. Chierichella, Esq., and Jesse J. Williams, Esq., Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, for Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corp., an intevenor. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Esq., and Glenda J. Collins, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency's evaluation of proposals, and the resulting source selection decision, were unreasonable is denied where the record shows that the agency's evaluation assessments were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation factors, and where the record shows that the resulting selection decision clearly documents the selection official's understanding of the evaluation results and reasonably assesses the evaluated strengths and weaknesses of the respective proposals in the tradeoff decision. DECISION General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Northrop Grumman Mission Systems, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W31P4Q-07-R-0052, issued by the United States Army Aviation and Missile Command for the Standardized Integrated Command Post System Family of Trailer Mounted Support Systems (TMSS or "trailer system") in support of the United States Army Tactical Operations Centers. General Dynamics essentially objects to the evaluation of proposals and challenges the agency's best value determination. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on an unrestricted basis on March 16, 2007, contemplates the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite quantity fixed-priced contract for medium and large trailer systems for a base period and four additional 1-year ordering periods. The TMSS is described as a turnkey system and is being obtained as a non-developmental item/commercial-off-the-shelf solution comprised of a controlled-environment tent, an environmental control unit (ECU), an auxiliary power unit for the ECU (i.e., a generator), and a trailer. RFP, attach. 2, sect. 1.2. The TMSS provides for workspace, power distribution, lighting, heating and cooling, tables, lightweight/integrated flooring, and a common grounding system for the staffs of all battlefield functional areas. Id. The RFP provided that the award would be made based on the proposal determined to be most advantageous to the government with appropriate consideration given to the following evaluation factors: technical,[1] price and performance risk.[2] RFP sect. M.1. The RFP stated that technical was significantly more important than price which was slightly more important than performance risk. RFP sect. M.2.b. The RFP also provided that all non-price evaluation factors combined were significantly more important than price. Id. With respect to the technical evaluation factor, the RFP stated that the government would evaluate the overall merit and risk presented by the technical proposals. In this regard, the RFP anticipated an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the offerors' technical approach, as well as their ability to deliver systems and supporting products that meet the RFP requirements. RFP sect. M.2.c. The RFP identified the following subfactors under the technical evaluation factor: product technical performance, safety, logistics and production capability, quality assurance program and failure reporting analysis, and corrective action system.[3] Under the product technical performance subfactor, the RFP identified the following elements to be evaluated in descending order of importance: ECU, generator, trailer and tent. RFP sect. M.2.c.1. The purpose of evaluating these elements was to determine the degree to which the offered trailer system conformed with the individual performance specifications in the RFP. Id.