L3 Security and Detection Systems, Inc

B-417463,B-417463.2 Jul 08, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights L3 Security and Detection Systems, Inc., of Tewksbury, Massachusetts, protests the award of a contract to Smiths Detection, Inc., of Edgewood, Maryland, under Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 70T04018R9DAP2080, which was issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), for advanced technology/computed tomography (AT/CT) systems, simulators, program management, warranties, configuration management services, and shipping and installation services. L3 challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals, and resulting 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: L3 Security and Detection Systems, Inc. File: B-417463; B-417463.2 Date: July 8, 2019 W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., Sandeep N. Nandivada, Esq., and Caitlin A. Crujido, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Armani Vadiee, Esq., and Mary Pay Buckenmeyer, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for Smiths Detection, Inc., the intervenor. David R. Cutler, Esq., Michael Kiffney, Esq., Maged Sharabi, Esq., and Thomas McGivern, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of proposals is denied where the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION L3 Security and Detection Systems, Inc., of Tewksbury, Massachusetts, protests the award of a contract to Smiths Detection, Inc., of Edgewood, Maryland, under Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 70T04018R9DAP2080, which was issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), for advanced technology/computed tomography (AT/CT) systems, simulators, program management, warranties, configuration management services, and shipping and installation services. L3 challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals, and resulting source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was issued on September 18, 2018, and subsequently amended six times, sought proposals for AT/CT systems. TSA employs computed tomography (CT), which utilizes x-ray imaging technology and sophisticated computer algorithms to develop a three dimensional image, to conduct checkpoint screening of carry-on bags at U.S. airports. When passengers submit their property for screening, a series of rolling tables and conveyors direct the property through the CT system where multiple x-ray images are captured and assembled into a three dimensional image. This CT system procurement is part of TSA's carry-on baggage screening program known as the Advanced Technology or "AT" screening program. Agency Legal Memo at 1. In addition to delivering up to 300 AT/CT systems, the RFP contemplates that the contractor will also provide simulators and ancillary equipment and services. RFP, amend. No. 5, Statement of Work (SOW), at 2. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, with a 1-year base period, and four, 1-year option periods. RFP at 4, 8. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors: (1) production and deployment capability; (2) technical capability; (3) past performance; and (4) price. Id. at 92-95. The factors were of descending importance, with the non-price factors, when combined, significantly more important than price. Id. at 94. Only the production and deployment capability factor is directly relevant to the issues presented in the protest. With respect to the production and deployment capability factor, an offeror was required to demonstrate its ability to meet TSA's desired production and deployment requirements listed in the SOW. Id. at 89. Specifically, the SOW anticipates that no later than 60 days after award the contractor will deliver a scanner for first article testing and evaluation. RFP, amend. No. 5, SOW, at 4. Upon TSA's approval of the contractor's test scanner, the contractor will then deploy an additional 30 AT/CT systems within 30 days, with an additional 30 systems to be deployed monthly thereafter. Id. With respect to this factor, TSA was to evaluate, among other considerations, whether the offeror can meet TSA's desired production and deployment requirements, as well as the offeror's proposed AT/CT system manufacturing and deployment capabilities per month. RFP, amend. No. 1, at 8. TSA received five proposals in response to the RFP, but one offeror was subsequently eliminated for offering a non-responsive proposal.