B-310436; B-310436.2, Recon Optical, Inc., December 27, 2007

B-310436; B-310436.2, Recon Optical, Inc., December 27, 2007 TITLE: B-310436; B-310436.2, Recon Optical, Inc., December 27, 2007 BNUMBER: B-310436; B-310436.2 DATE: December 27, 2007 ************************************************************ B-310436; B-310436.2, Recon Optical, Inc., December 27, 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: Recon Optical, Inc. File: B-310436; B-310436.2 Date: December 27, 2007 David J. Taylor, Esq., and William J. Spriggs, Esq., Spriggs & Hollingsworth, and Bradford E. Biegon, Esq., and Katherine A. Allen, Esq., for the protester. Richard H. Streeter, Esq., and Scott E. Pickens, Esq., Barnes & Thornburg LLP, for Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace AS, an intervenor. Daniel Pantzer, Esq., and Frank DiNicola, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg., Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency's decision not to select protester's proposal for award is unobjectionable, where the proposal was reasonably assessed the lowest possible ratings ("red" or "high risk") under the three most important evaluation factors and was higher in price than the other proposals, which were technically superior. DECISION Recon Optical, Inc. (ROI) protests the award of a contract to Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace AS by the Department of the Army under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-06-R-1409, for common remotely operated weapon stations (CROWS). ROI challenges the evaluation of its and Kongsberg's proposals under each of the evaluation factors. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The CROWS is a multi-vehicle weapon mounting and control system that attaches to the top of an armored vehicle and allows the gunner to remain inside the vehicle while firing the weapon. This remote weapon station is to be capable of mounting various small to medium caliber machine guns (the MK19 grenade machine gun, M2 HB machine gun, M240B machine gun, or M249 squad automatic weapon) and is to include, at a minimum, the weapon mount above the roof with sensors, fire control processor, display and controls, and other associated hardware. RFP, Executive Summary, at 7; Statement of Work, at 29. The specific requirements and capabilities of the proposed CROWS were contained in a detailed statement of work and performance specifications that were included with the RFP. Among other things, the CROWS was to provide remote day and night sighting, ballistic control capability, remote weapon charging, and first burst engagement of targets at the maximum effective range of the weapon. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Award Decision Document, at 1. The RFP provided for award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract (with time-and-material line items for depot operations). The RFP contemplated six "ordering periods": the first beginning on the date of contract award and ending on December 31, 2007, followed by four 1-year ordering periods, and concluding with a period running from January 1 to August 12, 2012. RFP sect. B. Production deliveries were to start 6 months after the first delivery order award at a rate of 30 CROWS per month, with a production rate ramp up by December 2007 to a minimum capacity of 100 CROWS per month. Id. sect. F. The solicitation stated that a minimum quantity of 1,000 CROWS and a maximum quantity of 6,500 CROWS would be ordered over the life of the contract. Id. sect. B. The RFP announced that the evaluation would be conducted in two phases, each with its own evaluation factors. "Phase I" (not challenged here) reviewed physical characteristics to determine eligibility for "Phase II," and Phase II (which is the subject of this protest) evaluated proposals and bid sample testing for award. RFP sections M.1, M.7, M.8. The Phase II evaluation criteria announced that award would be made on a best value basis considering the following factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical, schedule, management, logistic support, price, government purpose license rights (GPLR), past performance, and small disadvantaged business.[1] Id. sect. M.5. The technical, management, and logistic support factors each contained a number of equally rated subfactors. Id. sect. M.6. The RFP stated that proposals would be given adjectival ratings (major strength, strength, weakness, major weakness) for each of the subfactors, and color ratings (blue, green, amber, red) for each of the factors, and included the rating definitions for each factor and subfactor in the solicitation.[2] Id.