Ultra Electronics - 3 Phoenix, Inc.

B-412998 Jul 25, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ultra Electronics - 3 Phoenix, Inc. (UE3P), of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to L-3 Chesapeake Sciences Corporation (L3CSC), of Millersville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-14-R-6202, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), for production of the TB-34X fat line towed array and light weight tow cables. UE3P primarily challenges the agency's evaluation of its past performance and the agency's source selection decision. We deny the protest. 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:  Ultra Electronics - 3 Phoenix, Inc. File:  B-412998 Date:  July 25, 2016 Keith L. Baker, Esq., Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP, for the protester. Craig A. Holman, Esq., and Lauren J. Schlanger, Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, for L‑3 Chesapeake Sciences Corporation, the intervenor. Liza V. Craig, Esq., and Lea E. Delossantos, Esq., Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s past performance is denied where the agency reasonably considered past performance information submitted by the protester, as well as other relevant information identified by the agency, and the evaluation was consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. 2.  Agency’s selection of a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal for award is unobjectionable where the agency’s tradeoff decision was reasonable, and where the agency adequately documented its tradeoff rationale. DECISION Ultra Electronics – 3 Phoenix, Inc. (UE3P), of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to L-3 Chesapeake Sciences Corporation (L3CSC), of Millersville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-14-R-6202, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), for production of the TB-34X fat line towed array and light weight tow cables.  UE3P primarily challenges the agency’s evaluation of its past performance and the agency’s source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on May 14, 2014, under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, sought proposals for the design, development, testing, and production of the TB-34X fat line towed array and light weight tow cables over a base year and four 1-year option periods.[1]  The solicitation contemplated the award of a single contract for first article design, development, and testing during the base year (under cost‑plus-fixed-fee contract line items (CLINs)), as well as 39 TB-34X production quantities during the first option year (under cost‑plus‑incentive‑fee CLINs) and additional quantities during subsequent option years (under fixed-price-incentive-fee CLINs).  RFP at 2-25, 160-61.  The RFP also sought the procurement of technical manuals, training curricula, warranties, data rights, engineering and technical services, and other direct costs (under a variety of fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, and cost-only CLINs).  Id. Pursuant to the RFP, award would be made on a best-value basis, considering price and the following technical evaluation factors (listed in descending order of importance):  (1) performance specification compliance; (2) production capabilities; (3) past performance; and (4) management approach.[2]  Id. at 146-47.  The RFP specified that “overall technical merit” was more important than price.  Id. at 162. Of relevance here, under the past performance evaluation factor, offerors were instructed to describe in their proposals at least three previous government contracts (prime contracts or subcontracts) recently performed that were “most relevant to the effort required by this solicitation.”[3]  Id. at 133.  The RFP advised that the agency would assess the quality of an offeror’s past performance based on the information provided by the offeror (including references), as well as information the agency gathered from other sources.  Id. at 133, 150.  The agency would place the “[g]reatest value” on contracts that demonstrated the “most relevant and best past performance.”  Id. at 150.  Specifically, the agency would take into consideration similar efforts on contracts “proportionally to the similarity of the effort to the current requirements . . . in terms of technology, type of effort (development and fabrication), contract scope, schedule, and risk.”  Id.  In evaluating past performance, the agency would first assess how relevant a recent effort was, and then assess how well the offeror performed on the effort.  Id.