Airbus Helicopters, Inc. (N61340-19-R-0007)

B-418444,B-418444.2 May 12, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Airbus Helicopters, Inc., of Grand Prairie, Texas, protests the award of a contract to AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corp. (Leonardo), of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N61340-19-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, for 130 commercial helicopters certified under the instrument flight rules to be used for an advanced undergraduate helicopter pilot training systems program. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation of offerors' proposals and source selection decision. The protest is denied. 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:  Airbus Helicopters, Inc. File:  B-418444; B-418444.2 Date:  May 12, 2020 Michael F. Mason, Esq., Christine A. Reynolds, Esq., Adilene Rosales, Esq., and Sarah E. Godwin, Esq., Hogan Lovells US LLP, for the protester. Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Kendra P. Norwood, Esq., Moshe B. Broder, Esq., and Nicholas L. Perry, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corp., the intervenor. Amy N. Hanson, Esq., Cristina Costa de Almeida, Esq., Keli Norris, Esq., Patrick Coll, Esq., and Ann Stewart, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency Uri R. Yoo, Esq., Raymond Richards, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of offerors’ technical proposals is denied where the protest allegations are not supported by the record, and the evaluation and source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. 2.  Protest that the agency engaged in disparate treatment is denied where the differences in the evaluation stemmed from differences between the offerors’ proposals. DECISION   Airbus Helicopters, Inc., of Grand Prairie, Texas, protests the award of a contract to AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corp. (Leonardo),[1] of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N61340-19-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, for 130 commercial helicopters certified under the instrument flight rules to be used for an advanced undergraduate helicopter pilot training systems program.  The protester challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of offerors’ proposals and source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on January 28, 2019, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15.  Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, Tab A, RFP at 1, 43, 93.[2]  The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price contract for a base period and four option periods.  Id. at 26, 89-90.  The purpose of the RFP is to procure an advanced helicopter training system consisting of specified aircraft, a corresponding ground based training system, and contractor logistics support and maintenance.  AR, Exh. 1, Tab B1, Performance Work Statement at 8.  The RFP informed offerors that the agency would evaluate proposals using two factors, technical and price, where the technical factor would be significantly more important than price.  RFP at 93.  The technical factor included two subfactors listed in descending order of importance:  (1) aircraft system; and (2) management and support.  Id. at 94‑95.  The RFP advised that the agency would assign a technical rating and a technical risk rating to offerors’ proposals under the technical factor, based on the technical rating and technical risk rating assigned under each of the two technical subfactors.  Id. at 94.  The RFP described the technical rating as an assessment of compliance with the solicitation requirements that also considers the benefits and detriments related to program performance and operations.  Id.  The technical risk rating would assess the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirements, considering the potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, need to increase government oversight, or likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.  Id.  When evaluating the technical factor and subfactors, the following technical ratings would be used:  outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable.  Id. at 96.  In addition, the following technical risk ratings would be used:  low, moderate, high, and unacceptable.  Id. As relevant here, for the aircraft system subfactor, the RFP instructed offerors to provide documentation “demonstrating how the Offeror’s proposed aircraft meets or exceeds the system attributes as identified [in the RFP] and in the respective paragraphs of the [performance based specifications (PBS)].”  Id.