AAR Integrated Technologies

B-416859.4 Jun 11, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AAR Integrated Technologies (AAR), of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to DRS Network & Imaging Systems, LLC (DRS), of Melbourne, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-18-R-0037, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for multipurpose standard automatic test equipment. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals and the selection decision. 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:  AAR Integrated Technologies File:  B-416859.4 Date:  June 11, 2019 Paul R. Hurst, Esq., Michael J. Navarre, Esq., and Caitlin T. Conroy, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, for the protester. W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., and Rachael K. Plymale, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for DRS Network & Imaging Systems, LLC, the intervenor. Jered J. Leo, Esq., and Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals and selection decision is denied where the record shows that both were reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION AAR Integrated Technologies (AAR), of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to DRS Network & Imaging Systems, LLC (DRS), of Melbourne, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-18-R-0037, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for multipurpose standard automatic test equipment.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals and the selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on March 23, 2018, using Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 15.3 procedures, for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with five 12-month ordering periods.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP, at 2, 99.[1]  The RFP stated that the agency sought to procure “the first non-rugged, low cost variant of the next generation general-purpose standard At-Platform Automatic Test System (APATS) component of the [Army’s] Integrated Family of Test Equipment (IFTE).”  Id. at 2.  The test equipment devices will be used throughout all levels of maintenance to test and diagnose highly complex communications equipment, other electronic commodity equipment, missiles, aircraft, and ground vehicles.  AR, Tab 4a, Detail Specification, at 2.  The devices will also host interactive electronic technical manuals and/or specific application software and be used to upload/download mission data or software.  Id.  The RFP stated that the contract would include a minimum guarantee for 40 first article test units and a contract ceiling of $111,277,000.  RFP at 2.  The RFP stated that the following factors would be evaluated:  technical, price, past performance, and small business participation.  RFP at 99.  The technical factor included the following two subfactors, in descending order of importance:  performance and display.  Id. at 100.  The RFP further stated that the technical factor was “significantly more important” than the price factor, which was more important than the past performance factor, which was more important than the small business participation factor.  Id. at 99.  Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal offered the best value to the government utilizing a tradeoff source selection methodology.  Id. at 2, 99. In addition to a written technical proposal, the RFP required offerors to submit a sample device with standard accessories for testing.  RFP at 94.  The solicitation provided a specification that detailed threshold and objective requirements as well as a performance test plan for the device.  See generally AR, Tab 4a, Detail Specification; Tab 4b, Performance Test Plan.  The evaluation for the performance subfactor was to be based on the offeror’s sample device “meeting or exceeding the threshold benchmark score utilizing PassMark[®] Software Performance Test requirements as specified” in the detail specification.