B-299766; B-299766.2, Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors, August 10, 2007

B-299766; B-299766.2, Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors, August 10, 2007 TITLE: B-299766; B-299766.2, Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors, August 10, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299766; B-299766.2 DATE: August 10, 2007 ********************************************************************************* B-299766; B-299766.2, Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors, August 10, 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 Maritime Systems & Sensors File: B-299766; B-299766.2 Date: August 10, 2007 W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq., Edward Jackson, Esq., and Daniel E. Chudd, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for the protester. David P. Metzger, Esq., Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., Stuart W. Turner, Esq., and Caitlin K. Cloonan, Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, for Chesapeake Sciences Corporation, an intervenor. Sabrina L. Hay, Esq., Jessica Clark, Esq., Michael J. Glennon, Esq., Andrew Saunders, Esq., and Alex F. Marin, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is sustained where solicitation provided for tow-off testing of prototype arrays according to a procedure in which each offeror was explicitly permitted to participate in installation and check-out of its prototype, and then granted a single opportunity to repair any failure of its prototype immediately prior to towed testing, but the agency did not notify the protester that its prototype had already failed before arrival at the testing site, and did not allow the protester to repair its prototype, and as a result, the agency was unable to evaluate significant aspects of the performance of the protester's array. DECISION Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors protests the award of a contract to Chesapeake Sciences Corporation by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-05-R-6259, issued as a follow-on to development contracts awarded under a broad agency announcement to procure production towed-arrays for the TB-34 Next Generation Fat-Line Towed Array program. Lockheed argues that the Navy failed to properly remedy a breach of procurement integrity, did not follow the procedure for testing and evaluating prototype arrays specified in the RFP, and made a defective source selection decision. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The Navy conducted this competition for the production of towed arrays[1] between the two contractors that had delivered prototypes of their own design under separate contracts. Thus, the procurement process began in September 2004 when, after competition among four firms under a broad agency announcement, the Navy awarded separate contracts to Chesapeake and Lockheed for each to develop a prototype of a next-generation towed array, for a subsequent head-to-head competition for a production contract. Under the prototype contracts, each contractor designed and delivered a prototype of its array in October 2005. The Navy experienced problems with both prototypes in mid-March 2006, and returned each to the respective manufacturer for repairs from March 13 to March 19, 2006.[2] Shortly thereafter, the Navy issued the RFP here on March 23 to Chesapeake and Lockheed, requesting production offers. While the RFP requested a technical proposal, the evaluation of the performance of each offeror's prototype array, as discussed below, formed the basis for a significant part of the technical evaluation. In this regard, it should be noted that certain testing of the prototype arrays was ongoing before and after issuance of the RFP for this competition. The RFP described the non-price evaluation in terms of three factors: technical performance, contractor statement of work, and past performance.[3] RFP at 178. Of these three, the RFP specified that the technical performance factor would be significantly more important than the contractor statement of work and past performance factors combined. In addition, the non-price factors were significantly more important than cost/price. The RFP also made clear that the operation of the prototypes would be a significant aspect of the technical performance evaluation. RFP at 170-71. The RFP described several stages of the evaluation of the protoypes, including acoustic calibration, tow-off testing, and anechoic chamber testing. These were described in a separate section of the RFP labeled "Evaluation Plan for the Next-Generation Fat-Line Towed Array Testing." RFP, Evaluation Plan, at 1.