Raytheon Company

B-414057 Jan 31, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Raytheon Company, of Dulles, Virginia, protests the U.S. Marine Corps's rejection of Raytheon's proposal, submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. M67004-16-R-0011, for the inspection and repair of certain Marine Corps vehicles. Raytheon asserts that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with Raytheon. 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:  Raytheon Company File:  B-414057 Date:  January 31, 2017 Richard O. Wolf, Esq., and Casey J. McKinnon, Esq., Moore & Lee, LLP, for the protester. James Y. Boland, Esq., Venable LLP, for ATAP, Inc., an intervenor. Robert J. Drone, Esq., United States Marine Corps, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency’s discussions with protester were meaningful and not misleading where, during discussions, the agency directed protester’s attention to specific aspects of its proposal that needed to be addressed. DECISION Raytheon Company, of Dulles, Virginia, protests the U.S. Marine Corps’s rejection of Raytheon’s proposal, submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. M67004-16-R-0011, for the inspection and repair of certain Marine Corps vehicles.  Raytheon asserts that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with Raytheon.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 24, 2016, the agency issued RFP No. M67004-16-R-0011, seeking proposals to “Inspect [and] Repair Only As Necessary” (IROAN) a quantity of vehicles identified as “Category (CAT) 1 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Cougar Vehicles.”[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Initial Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 1.  The solicitation contemplated restoration of the vehicles to “Condition Code A.”[2]  The agency explains that the vehicles to be serviced are “mainly constructed of high hardness steel,” and that each vehicle has a “blast resistant underbody and thick layer armored glass that offers unparalleled protection.”  Memorandum of Law/Contracting Officer’s Statement (MOL/COS), Nov. 23, 2016, at 2.  The agency further notes that “[Marine Corps members’] lives are dependent on a fully capable and operational MRAP Cougar.”  Id. The solicitation provided that award would be made on a lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) basis, and established the following evaluation factors:  technical, past performance and price.[3]  AR, Tab 4, RFP at 41-42.  Under the heading “Technical Evaluation,” the solicitation identified various go/no-go criteria that proposals were required to meet,[4] including: Demonstrate an understanding of the Performance Work Statement requirements.  Proposal should clearly define the Offeror’s response to the requirements of the PWS. Discuss the processes and facilities that will be used to meet the PWS requirements. . . . Discuss how the offeror will comply with the Ballistic Glass requirement of the PWS. . . . Appropriate storage space for GFE [government furnished equipment].  Sufficient shop space, equipment and appropriate climate controlled spaces for specific work process. . . . Demonstrate ability to perform Inspect Repair Only as Necessary (IROAN) the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) CAT 1 Cougar. . . . Demonstrate[] the Offeror’s capability to meet the required Repair Cycle Time (RCT) of 120 days by providing a timeline and steps to bring the MRAP CAT I Cougar to Condition Code “A.”. . . Provide a written plan describing how the Offeror’s capability will meet the welding specifications particular of MRAP Armor and high hardness steel. Provide welder certifications standards and ensure they are in compliance with DOD [Department of Defense] and industry standards. AR, Tab 4, RFP at 36-37.  On or before the July 29 closing date, four offerors--VSE, General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS), Raytheon, and ATAP, Inc.--submitted proposals, which were subsequently evaluated.  Raytheon’s proposal was evaluated as technically unacceptable for failure to meet the multiple PWS requirements listed above.  AR, Tab 13, Initial TEB Report, at 3-5. The agency states that, at the time it completed the evaluation of initial proposals, the agency intended to make award without discussions.[5]  MOL/COS, Nov.