Complete Parachute Solutions, Inc.

B-415240 Dec 15, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Complete Parachute Solutions, Inc., (CPS) of Deland, Florida, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. M67854-17-R-1200, issued by the United States Marine Corps for parachutes. CPS argues that the solicitation includes requirements that prevent it from intelligently preparing a proposal and competing on an equal basis. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Complete Parachute Solutions, Inc. File:  B-415240 Date:  December 15, 2017 William M. Jack, Esq., and Amba M. Datta, Esq., Kelley Drye & Warren LLP; and Robert L. Feldman, Esq., Law  Offices of Robert L. Feldman, for the protester. Korvin S. Kraics, Esq., United States Marine Corps, 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 agency's incorporation of certain technical standards into solicitation's specifications is denied where record shows that agency's use of those standards is reasonable and logically related to the agency's requirements. DECISION Complete Parachute Solutions, Inc., (CPS) of Deland, Florida, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. M67854-17-R-1200, issued by the United States Marine Corps for parachutes.  CPS argues that the solicitation includes requirements that prevent it from intelligently preparing a proposal and competing on an equal basis.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Marines currently have fielded what is known as the multi-mission parachute system (MMPS) which is a service-specific parachute system manufactured by CPS.  The MMPS is nearing the end of its lifecycle, and the agency is seeking a replacement for it in this acquisition.  The replacement system is known as the enhanced multi-mission parachute system (E-MMPS).  Among other things, the solicitation includes a performance specification (PSPEC) for the parachute system being acquired.  Agency Report (AR) exh. 24, E-MMPS PSPEC.  CPS's protest concerns the terms of that specification.  In promulgating that PSPEC, the agency incorporated certain terms of another document known as the Parachute Industry Association Technical Standard 135 (TS 135).  CPS protests the incorporation of TS 135 into the solicitation's specifications.  The record shows that the agency has been in contact with industry participants, including the protester, throughout the development of its requirement in general, and the PSPEC in particular.  As is germane to the protest, the record shows that the agency first advised CPS of its intention to incorporate TS 135 into the PSPEC during a vendor visit to CPS's facility in May, 2016.  AR, exh. 20, CPS Vendor Visit Trip Report.  In response, CPS advised the agency that it did not perform all of the testing required by TS 135 (presumably in connection with its manufacture of the MMPS, as well as in connection with its development efforts related to the E-MMPS) because the firm did not think that TS 135 compensated for differences between sport and military parachuting.  Id. at 2.  Instead, CPS advised the agency that it relied on the development and jumping experience of its personnel rather than on strict compliance with TS 135.  Id.  CPS also stated that it would evaluate how the requirements of TS 135 compared to its own efforts, and would provide the agency with information relating to what are described in the document as "exception areas" relating to strict compliance with TS 135.  Id. Subsequent to the meeting, CPS provided the agency a letter dated October 5, 2016.  AR, exh. 25 CPS Letter Regarding the Applicability of TS 135 to the Agency's Needs.  CPS noted that, because TS 135 was for sport jumping rather than military jumping, it did not provide for testing that took into consideration the system's compatibility with ancillary military equipment such as weapons systems, tactical vests with body armor, and K9 passenger capabilities.  Id. at 1.  CPS also noted a concern relating to potential differences between the maximum airspeed for use of the parachute that TS 135 required to be "plackarded" on the parachute, and airspeeds that could be achieved during deployment at certain altitudes.  CPS suggests that there is a potential risk that a user could deploy the parachute at an airspeed exceeding the maximum airspeed "plackarded" on the parachute.  AR, exh. 25 CPS Letter Regarding the Applicability of TS 135 to the Agency's Needs, at 1.  CPS also expressed the view that TS 135 does not require adequate real-world use to validate the parachute's reliability.  AR, exh. 25 CPS Letter Regarding the Applicability of TS 135 to the Agency's Needs, at 2.