AAR Integrated Technologies

B-417092,B-417092.2,B-417092.3,B-417092.4 Feb 13, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AAR Integrated Technologies, of Huntsville, Alabama, and VT Miltope, of Hope Hull, Alabama, protest the award of a contract to Leonardo DRS, of Arlington, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W31P4Q-18-R-0093, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for multi-purpose maintenance support devices. AAR and Miltope contend that the agency failed to test their samples in accordance with the solicitation. The protesters also challenge the agency's evaluation of the offerors' technical proposals. We deny the protests. We deny the protests. 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; VT Miltope File:  B-417092; B-417092.2; B-417092.3; B-417092.4 Date:  February 13, 2019 Paul R. Hurst, Esq., Michael J. Navarre, Esq., and Caitlin Conroy, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson LLP, for AAR Integrated Technologies; and Howard J. Stanislawski, Esq., and Patrick K. O’Keefe, Esq., Sidley Austin LLP, for VT Miltope, the protesters. W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., Rachael K. Plymale, Esq., and Caitlin A. Crujido, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for Leonardo DRS, the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., David C. Sabine, Esq., Brian Vallone-Wells, Esq., and Benjamin Jarrell, Department of the Army, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protests that the agency failed to properly evaluate technical proposals are denied where the record shows the agency reasonably evaluated proposals in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest that agency should have found awardee’s proposal technically unacceptable is denied where, although the agency effectively waived a solicitation requirement, the protester does not demonstrate that it was prejudiced by the waiver. DECISION AAR Integrated Technologies, of Huntsville, Alabama, and VT Miltope, of Hope Hull, Alabama, protest the award of a contract to Leonardo DRS, of Arlington, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W31P4Q-18-R-0093, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for multi-purpose maintenance support devices.  AAR and Miltope contend that the agency failed to test their samples in accordance with the solicitation.  The protesters also challenge the agency’s evaluation of the offerors’ technical proposals.  We deny the protests. BACKGROUND On March 22, 2018, the Army issued the RFP for three maintenance support system devices:  Maintenance Support Device Version 4 Rugged (MSD-V4R), MSD Version 4 Semi-Rugged (MSD-V4S), and Marine Configuration.[1]  The solicitation anticipated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, for a base year, with four 12-month optional ordering periods.  RFP at 4, 8.  The RFP stated that the contract had an estimated value of $375 million.  Id. at 202.  The maintenance devices (also referred to as systems or kits) are non-commercial items consisting of commercial off-the-shelf software and hardware components (i.e., laptops) operating together with system specific software, standard accessories, interconnecting cables, and test adapter modules.  Contracting Officer Statement/Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) (Miltope) at 2.  The devices will be used throughout all levels of maintenance as the Army’s test system for a wide variety of complex systems.  RFP at 106.  The devices will also be used to host interactive electronic technical manuals and/or specific application software, and to upload/download mission data or software.  Id.  The devices are intended to support Army maintenance, including ground, armor, aviation, missile, wheeled vehicle, signal/radio, command and control, and other tactical system maintainers.  Id. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal offered the best value to the government utilizing a tradeoff source selection methodology.  RFP at 210.  The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated under the following factors:  technical, past performance, small business participation, and price.  Id.  The technical factor was significantly more important than the past performance factor and small business participation factor.  When combined, the non-price factors were substantially more important than price.  Id. at 211.  To receive consideration for award, offerors were required to receive a rating of no less than acceptable for each factor.  Id.