L-3 Communications Corporation

B-410644.2 Jan 20, 2016 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights L-3 Communications, L-3 Link Simulation and Training (L-3), of Arlington, Texas, protests the issuance of a delivery order to CAE USA, Inc., of Tampa, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N61340-14-R-0079, issued by the Department of the Navy for technology refresh and upgrades to existing helicopter flight training devices, as well as for the purchase of additional helicopter training devices. L-3 maintains that the agency misevaluated its proposal and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision 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, L-3 Link Simulations and Training File:  B-410644.2 Date:  January 20, 2016 Craig A. Holman, Esq., Stuart W. Turner, Esq., and Nicole B. Neuman, Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, for the protester. Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., Megan Mocho Jeschke, Esq., and Elizabeth N. Jochum, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for CAE USA, Inc., an intervenor. R. Montana Erickson, Esq., and Sharon H. Sachs, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of proposals and source selection decision is denied where record shows that evaluation and source selection were reasonable, rational, and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations.  DECISION L-3 Communications, L-3 Link Simulation and Training (L-3), of Arlington, Texas, protests the issuance of a delivery order to CAE USA, Inc., of Tampa, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N61340-14-R-0079, issued by the Department of the Navy for technology refresh and upgrades to existing helicopter flight training devices, as well as for the purchase of additional helicopter training devices.[1]  L-3 maintains that the agency misevaluated its proposal and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplates the issuance, on a best-value basis, of a delivery order to perform technology refresh and upgrades to MH-60 Romeo (MH-60R) Tactical Operational Flight Trainers, MH-60 Sierra (MH-60S) Operational Flight Trainers and MH-60S Weapons Tactical Trainers, as well as the procurement of three new MH-60R Tactical Operational Flight Trainers, along with ancillary equipment, associated provisioning and logistics support.  Firms were advised that the agency would evaluate proposals considering price and one technical factor which was more important than price.  RFP at 132.[2]  The technical factor was divided into three subfactors:  technical approach, logistics approach (of approximately equal importance), and management approach (deemed less important than the other two subfactors).  RFP at 131-132.[3] The RFP advised that the Navy would assign adjectival technical ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal or unacceptable under each subfactor, and an overall technical adjectival rating to the proposals.  RFP at 132, 134.  The RFP also advised offerors that the agency would assign technical risk ratings of low, moderate or high for each subfactor and for the proposal overall.  Id.  For price evaluation purposes, the agency would review prices for completeness and reasonableness, and to ensure that the proposed prices were balanced.  RFP at 133-134.[4] The agency received several proposals in response to the RFP and evaluated them; engaged in discussions; and solicited, obtained, and evaluated revised proposals.  After completing that evaluation, the agency issued a delivery order to L-3, finding that its proposal represented the best value to the government.  After being advised of that award decision, CAE filed a protest in our Office challenging the agency’s selection decision.  In response to that protest, the agency informed our Office that it intended to reevaluate proposals and make a new source selection decision.  Based on the agency’s proposed corrective action, we dismissed CAE’s protest as academic.  (B-410644, Oct.