Microwave Monolithics, Inc.

B-413088 Aug 11, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Microwave Monolithics, Inc. (Microwave) of Simi Valley, California, a small business, protests the elimination of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91CRB-14-R-0032, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command (Army) for personal recovery devices (PRD). The protester asserts that the Army improperly evaluated its technical proposal. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Microwave Monolithics, Inc. File:  B-413088 Date:  August 11, 2016 Daniel R. Ch’en for the protester. Maria S.G. Cooke for McMurdo, Inc., an intervenor. Erica A. Harder Smith, Department of the Army, for the agency. Frank Maguire, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester’s proposal was properly eliminated from the competition where the agency reasonably concluded that proposal failed to show compliance with International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), as required. DECISION Microwave Monolithics, Inc. (Microwave) of Simi Valley, California, a small business, protests the elimination of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91CRB-14-R-0032, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command (Army) for personal recovery devices (PRD).  The protester asserts that the Army improperly evaluated its technical proposal.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The PRD is a militarized personal locator beacon (PLB), part of the Personnel Recovery Support System (PRSS), designed as an alert and notification system to facilitate the recovery of isolated, missing, detained, or captured service members.  Agency Report (AR) at 2; RFP (conformed copy), at 2.  PRSS Increment 1a involved acquisition of a commercial PLB.  AR at 2.  Over 50,000 Increment 1a PLBs have been fielded for operational use.  Id.  PRSS Increment 1b is the subject of this RFP and protest.  Increment 1b PRDs will be similar to Increment 1a PRDs, except that, unlike Increment 1a PRDs, Increment 1b PRDs will operate in a “secure manner” with a “secure waveform” supplied by the government.  AR at 2-3.  The Increment 1b acquisition includes two phases.  Id. at 4, citing RFP at 4, 51.  Phase l entails award of up to four fixed-price contracts for the delivery of four working production representative articles, whereas Phase II will entail award of a contract for production of PRDs to a single contactor (from the Phase I awardees).  AR at 4.  The RFP separately defines what information is required for, and will be evaluated with regard to, Phase I and Phase II.  AR at 4 n.1, citing RFP, § L, at 42-47, 51-62.  At issue in this protest is the Phase I evaluation.  The RFP provided that award in Phase I would be “made to the best four (4) proposals . . . determined to be the most beneficial to the Government.”  RFP at 51.  The evaluation factors and subfactors for award in Phase I were as follows: Phase I – Production Representative PRD Factor I – Technical Sub-Factor A. Manufacturing (Go/No-Go)  Sub-Factor B. PRD Conceptual Design Factor II – Past Performance Sub-Factor A. Past Performance Relevancy Sub-Factor B. Performance Confidence Assessments Factor III – Small Business Utilization (Go/No-Go) Subfactor A. Small Business Participation Plan (Go/No-Go)  Subfactor B. Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Go/No-Go) Factor IV – Price. RFP at 51-52.  The RFP advised that in the evaluation, technical was more important than past performance, and both factors were more important than price. Id.