BCF Solutions, Inc.

B-413287 Sep 27, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights BCF Solutions, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to N2 Imaging Systems, LLC, of Irvine, California under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-16-R-JQ16, issued by the Department of the Navy for the development and production of a next-generation crew served day/night weapon sighting system. BCF maintains that the agency misevaluated proposals and unreasonably failed to award it a contract. We sustain the protest. We sustain 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:  BCF Solutions, Inc. File:  B-413287 Date:  September 27, 2016 Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., and Andrew C. Crawford, Esq., Brown Rudnick LLP, for the protester. John W. Chierichella, Esq., Keith R. Szeliga, Esq., and Katie A. Calogero, Esq., Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, for the intervenor. Mark Golden, Esq., and Agu K. Onuma, 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 the agency’s evaluation of awardee’s technical proposal is sustained where the record shows that the awardee failed to comply with the solicitation’s requirement that offerors provide detailed information to substantiate the acceptability of their proposed products. DECISION BCF Solutions, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to N2 Imaging Systems, LLC, of Irvine, California under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00164-16-R-JQ16, issued by the Department of the Navy for the development and production of a next-generation crew served day/night weapon sighting system.  BCF maintains that the agency misevaluated proposals and unreasonably failed to award it a contract. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP provided for the award, on a best-value basis, of up to two contracts for the development and eventual production of the sighting systems.  Firms were advised that, if the agency did award two contracts, it would perform a “down select” between the two contractors after evaluation of prototypes later to be fabricated during phase one of the contract effort, and would select one firm for production of an estimated quantity of sighting systems during phase two of the contract.  Firms were advised that the agency would make award based on price and three non-price considerations:  technical/risk capability, management approach, and past performance.  RFP at 110-11.  Technical/risk capability was significantly more important than management approach, past performance and price; management approach was more important than past performance and price; past performance was more important than price; and the non-price factors in combination were significantly more important than price.  Id.  The technical/risk capability and management approach factors also included several subfactors.  Id.  Relevant to the protest, the technical/risk capability factor included three subfactors:  written performance specification compliance, statement of work compliance and small business participation. [1]  Id. at 111.  The written performance specification compliance subfactor was deemed significantly more important than the other two subfactors which, in turn, were listed in descending order of importance. [2]  Id. at 110.  The RFP advised that the agency would evaluate price for realism and reasonableness.  Id.