EFW Inc. (N00421-18-R-0091)

B-418177,B-418177.2,B-418177.3,B-418177.4,B-418177.5 Jan 21, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights EFW, Inc., of Fort Worth, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Rockwell Collins, Inc., doing business as Collins Aerospace, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00421-18-R-0091, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center, for binocular helmet-mounted display systems for use by helicopter pilots (often referred to as the enhanced visual acuity system, or EVA). EFW argues that the Navy misevaluated the proposals and made an unreasonable 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:  EFW Inc. File:  B-418177; B-418177.2; B-418177.3; B-418177.4; B-418177.5 Date:  January 21, 2020 Todd J. Canni, Esq., Marques O. Peterson, Esq., Kevin J. Slattum, Esq., J. Matthew Carter, Esq., Aaron S. Ralph, Esq., and Kevin R. Massoudi, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. Daniel R. Forman, Esq., John E. McCarthy, Jr., Esq., Christian N. Curran, Esq., and William B. O’Reilly, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Rockwell Collins, Inc., the intervenor. Bridget A. Jarvis, Esq., Lilyanne Ohanesian, Esq., and Heather B. Norris, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency misevaluated both the protester’s and the awardee’s proposals under the technical and past performance factors is denied where the contemporaneous record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. 2.  Protest that agency made an unreasonable cost realism assessment of the awardee’s proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency based its realism analysis on each offeror’s unique approach and made a reasonable cost realism assessment.  DECISION EFW, Inc., of Fort Worth, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Rockwell Collins, Inc., doing business as Collins Aerospace, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00421-18-R-0091, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center, for binocular helmet-mounted display systems for use by helicopter pilots (often referred to as the enhanced visual acuity system, or EVA).  EFW argues that the Navy misevaluated the proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on December 7, 2018, sought proposals for a next generation helmet-mounted night vision device and heads-up display in support of the enhanced visual acuity program.  The RFP anticipated the contractor’s efforts would begin with an engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase, followed by options for engineering development models, and low-rate initial production.  Agency Report (AR) Tab 1, RFP, at 86.  Award of a single hybrid contract[1] would be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value to the agency considering three factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical approach, past performance, and cost.  Id. at 89.  Under the technical approach factor, the agency would assess a technical rating (green/acceptable, yellow/marginal, or red/unacceptable) and a separate technical risk rating (low, moderate, high, or unacceptable), and the evaluation would include a technology readiness assessment.  Id. at 92.  The assessment of technical risk would consider the risk associated with the offeror’s technical approach and, in particular, the “potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.”  Id.  In that connection, the RFP also encouraged offerors to identify as a separate “risk reducer” each individual element of their proposals that would reduce the technical risk and provide benefit to the agency.  Id. at 63, 65, 93.  The past performance evaluation would result in a performance confidence assessment rating based on an integrated assessment of all performance areas, with a neutral rating of unknown confidence for an offeror without available performance information.  Id. at 91.