Advanced Turbine Engine Company

B-417324,B-417324.2 May 30, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Advanced Turbine Engine Company (ATEC), of Phoenix, Arizona, protests the award of an engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) contract for the improved turbine engine program (ITEP) to General Electric Aviation (GE), of Lynn, Massachusetts, under request for proposals No. W58RGZ-18-R-0058, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command (Army). ATEC challenges multiple aspects of the agency's evaluation and source 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: Advanced Turbine Engine Company File: B-417324; B-417324.2 Date: May 30, 2019 Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., Jon W. Burd, Esq., Tracye W. Howard, Esq., Brian Walsh, Esq., Gary S. Ward, Esq., Cara L. Lasley, Esq., and Sarah B. Hansen, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Marcia G. Madsen, Esq., David F. Dowd, Esq., Luke Levasseur, Esq., and Roger V. Abbott, Esq., Mayer Brown LLP, for General Electric Aviation, the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., Matthew A. McNease, Esq., and Christopher C. Schwan, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. John Sorrenti, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of awardee's maintainability metrics is denied where record shows that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, and the protester has not shown prejudice. 2. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of awardee's proposal with respect to an engine performance and operability requirement is denied where the basis for the protester's argument is not supported by the record. 3. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the awardee's proposal with respect to the use of ceramic matrix composite hardware in its proposed engine is denied where the record shows the agency reasonably determined that the awardee's proposal contained sufficient information to satisfy the solicitation's requirements. 4. Protest alleging disparate treatment in the award of strengths regarding electrical integration of the engine is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably determined that the protester's proposal did not provide the same benefits as the awardee's proposal. 5. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the offerors' proposed data rights is denied where the record shows the agency reasonably determined that both offerors' proposed data rights met the requirements of the solicitation. 6. Protest alleging that the agency's cost realism evaluation was incomplete because it did not consider the technical risk assessed to the awardee's technical proposal is denied where agency reasonably considered risk as part of its technical evaluation and there is nothing in the record to suggest that the agency determined that risk would affect the awardee's ability to perform at its proposed costs. 6. Protest alleging that the offerors had a materially different understanding of the solicitation requirements is denied where protest is based on fact that protester proposed more labor hours than awardee and protester has not identified a solicitation requirement that led to the disparate understanding. 7. Protest alleging misleading discussions regarding proposed labor hours is denied where record shows that the agency conducted discussions with the protester about its proposed labor hours. DECISION Advanced Turbine Engine Company (ATEC)1, of Phoenix, Arizona, protests the award of an engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) contract for the improved turbine engine program (ITEP) to General Electric Aviation (GE), of Lynn, Massachusetts, under request for proposals No. W58RGZ-18-R-0058, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command (Army). ATEC challenges multiple aspects of the agency's evaluation and source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The ITEP seeks to produce a more powerful and fuel-efficient engine for the Black Hawk and Apache helicopter fleets. Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, Source Selection Plan (SSP) § 1.1, at 5. In particular, the Army intends to procure an "affordable 3,000 shaft horsepower engine with a reduction in fuel consumption by 13 - 25%, and decreased sustainment costs by up to 35%" compared with the current legacy engine on the helicopters. Id. § 1.2, at 5. ATEC and GE both have been working on designing and developing the new engines for a number of years. Prior to the award of the EMD contract, both ATEC and GE performed Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) contracts that led to the completion of a preliminary design review (PDR) for each company's respective engine. Id.