Altavian, Inc.

B-417701,B-417701.2 Sep 17, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Altavian, Inc., of Gainesville, Florida, protests the award of a delivery order to AeroVironment, Inc., of Simi Valley, California, under Delivery Order Request (DOR) No. W911QY-18-R-PROD-FCS-01, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, for flight control system kits and ground radio kits. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and improperly made its 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:  Altavian, Inc. File:  B-417701; B-417701.2 Date:  September 17, 2019 J. Dale Gipson, Esq., W. Brad English, Esq., Emily J. Chancey, Esq., and Michael W. Rich, Esq., Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, for the protester. Richard B. Oliver, Esq., and J. Matthew Carter, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for AeroVironment, Inc., the intervenor. Debra J. Talley, Esq., and Brian Weber, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the agency did not provide meaningful discussions is denied where the agency reasonably communicated its concerns about the protester’s initial proposal. 2.  Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals is denied where the evaluations were consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 3.  Protest that the agency made an unreasonable source selection decision is denied where the record shows that the agency considered the technical merit of the proposals and reasonably determined that protester’s proposal was not worth a price premium. DECISION Altavian, Inc., of Gainesville, Florida, protests the award of a delivery order to AeroVironment, Inc., of Simi Valley, California, under Delivery Order Request (DOR) No. W911QY‑18-R‑PROD‑FCS‑01, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, for flight control system kits and ground radio kits.  The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and improperly made its source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On September 14, 2018, the agency issued the DOR for flight control system (FCS) and ground radio kits to allow the RQ-11B Raven[1] unmanned aircraft (UA) to operate in updated spectrum bands (i.e., 1625-1725 Megahertz (MHz), 1780-1850 MHz, and 2025-2110 MHz).  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, DOR at 1; AR, Tab 5, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1.  The FCS kits were to consist of an avionics card, a direct data link radio, and any other components needed to allow the UA to meet performance requirements.  AR, Tab 5, PWS at 1.  The Ground Radio Kits were to include the radio, antenna, and cables necessary to connect the Army’s ground control station to the UA.  Id.  The DOR contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for 45 FCS kits and 25 ground radio kits within four months of award followed by seven options for additional quantities.  AR, Tab 4, DOR at 2-3.  Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering technical, past performance, and price factors.  Id. at 8-12.  The  non-price factors were significantly more important than the price factor.  Id. at 8.  The technical factor consisted of three subfactors (technical demonstration, technical approach, and data rights).  Id. at 9-11.  For the technical demonstration subfactor, offerors were required to demonstrate ground and flight functionality.  Id. at 9‑10.  The flight demonstration required offerors to show proficiency in six areas, including target accuracy.  Id. at 9. The agency received three proposals by the October 12, 2018, closing date.  Combined Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2.  Offerors completed their technical demonstrations during late November and early December.  Id.  The agency then conducted an initial evaluation of the proposals.  Id.  With regard to Altavian’s proposal, the agency identified problems with its proposed pricing.  Id. at 2-3.  As for AeroVironment’s proposal, the agency assigned it a deficiency for its target accuracy demonstration.  Id.