Sierra Nevada Corporation

B-415233 Dec 05, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sierra Nevada Corporation, of Sparks, Nevada, protests the rejection of the proposal it submitted in response to, and the cancellation of, request for proposals (RFP) No. W58RGZ-16-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army for a fixed-wing utility aircraft. Sierra Nevada asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as unacceptable. 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:  Sierra Nevada Corporation File:  B-415233 Date:  December 5, 2017 Steven M. Masiello, Esq., and Joseph G. Martinez, Esq., Dentons US LLP, for the protester. Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Christopher C. Schwan, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably rejected proposal and cancelled solicitation for fixed-wing utility aircraft where proposed aircraft could not meet solicitation's payload requirements because it would have a center of gravity that exceeded the limit established by the manufacturer. DECISION Sierra Nevada Corporation, of Sparks, Nevada, protests the rejection of the proposal it submitted in response to, and the cancellation of, request for proposals (RFP) No. W58RGZ-16-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army for a fixed-wing utility aircraft.  Sierra Nevada asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as unacceptable.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation requested proposals to provide a commercially available fixed-wing aircraft certified by the Federal Aviation Administration, and modified to include Army-specified mission equipment, including communications, navigation, surveillance and aircraft survivability equipment.  Contracting Officer's Statement/Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2.  The fixed-wing utility aircraft will be used to perform time-sensitive movements of key personnel and equipment.  Id.  The solicitation included a product description document (PDD) which set out in detail 86 minimum performance standards (MPS) that the aircraft was required to meet, including, as relevant to this protest, air movement mission-range and payload.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, PDD, at 7-22; see also PDD ¶ 6.3.2, Air Movement Mission-Range and Payload, MPS FUAPDD0006.[1]  The solicitation provided for the evaluation of three factors:  cost/price; small business participation plan; and technical, which was comprised of the MPS, air vehicle, and logistics subfactors.  AR, Tab 6, RFP Basis for Award § M-3 at 1 and 6.  For the MPS subfactor, the agency would rate the proposal as acceptable or unacceptable for each MPS; a proposal was required to be rated acceptable for each MPS to receive consideration for award.[2]  Id. at 6-7. The PDD described two critical missions that the aircraft would be utilized to perform:  self-deployment and air movement.  AR, Tab 4, PDD ¶¶ 4.6 and 4.7.  The PDD also advised offerors of conditions that applied to all missions, including the requirement that for mass property calculations the aircrew (pilot and co-pilot) weigh 200 pounds each, and each has a minimum of 75 pounds of equipment.  Id. at ¶ 5.3. Sierra Nevada was the only offeror to submit a proposal.  Following the evaluation of that proposal, a request for clarifications, discussions, and the submission and evaluation of a revised proposal, the Army found that there were weight and balance issues that caused the aircraft proposed by Sierra Nevada to fall outside the range for the center of gravity established by the manufacturer of the aircraft.  COS/MOL at 11; AR, Tab 11, Revised MPS Evaluation Workbook, at 1; Tab 17, Final Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report, at 7.  As a result, the aircraft failed to meet four minimum performance standards:  air movement mission-range and payload, cruise airspeed, heavy aircraft high-hot takeoff [3], and operational energy.[4]  Id.; AR, Tab 11, Revised MPS Evaluation Workbook, at 1-3; Tab 17, Final SSEB Report, at 7.  The agency rejected Sierra Nevada's proposal and, because it did not receive any acceptable offers, cancelled the solicitation.  Id. at 13.  DISCUSSION Sierra Nevada protests that the agency unreasonably determined that its proposal was unacceptable.  Specifically, the protester contends that the aircraft it proposed met the weight and balance requirements and therefore the agency's evaluation was unreasonable and not in accordance with the solicitation's requirements and evaluation criteria.  The evaluation of an offeror's proposal is a matter within the agency's discretion.  The Boeing Co., B-409941, B-409941.2, Sept.