Avionic Instruments LLC (N00019-19-R-0030)

B-418604.3 May 05, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Avionic Instruments LLC, of Avenel, New Jersey, protests the award of a contract to Physical Optics Corporation (POC), of Torrance, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00019-19-R-0030, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, to replace analog inverters on the Navy's UH-1Y helicopter fleet with digital signal processor (DSP) inverters. The protester challenges as unreasonable the agency's evaluation of technical proposals and the best-value tradeoff analysis. 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:  Avionic Instruments LLC File:  B-418604.3 Date:  May 5, 2021 Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., and Michael T. Gwinn, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. John R. Prairie, Esq., Cara L. Lasley, Esq., and Nicole E. Giles, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Physical Optics Corporation, the intervenor. Ann M. Stewart, Esq., Eric M. Carlson, Esq., and Cody Benway, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Allegations that the agency unreasonably evaluated technical proposals are dismissed where the record demonstrates that the allegations were abandoned or untimely, and the challenge to the best-value tradeoff analysis is denied where the record shows that the agency’s award decision was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION Avionic Instruments LLC, of Avenel, New Jersey, protests the award of a contract to Physical Optics Corporation (POC), of Torrance, California, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00019-19-R-0030, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, to replace analog inverters on the Navy’s UH-1Y helicopter fleet with digital signal processor (DSP) inverters.  The protester challenges as unreasonable the agency’s evaluation of technical proposals and the best-value tradeoff analysis. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND This procurement was for development and production of a replacement inverter for the UH-1Y helicopter.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, Source Selection Plan at 7.  Inverters convert a helicopter’s direct current (DC) into an alternating current (AC) usable for other electronic needs.  The agency intends to replace all existing UH-1Y analog power inverters, which have a history of low reliability rates, with a digital design that offers the potential for improved reliability.  AR, Tab 8, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report at 3.  The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract with a base award and options.  AR, Tab 2, RFP at 3-6.  The base award included four contract line item numbers for:  non-recurring engineering (NRE) required to satisfy specification requirements; delivery of six flight test assets; delivery of four assets for validation/verification, and testing; and technical and administrative data.  Id.  The options were to manufacture and deliver additional quantities of DSP inverters that meet the configuration approved during the base contract.  Id. Award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, considering two factors--technical and price--with technical being more important.  Id. at 69.  Under the technical factor, the government would evaluate the offeror’s “understanding of, approach to and ability to meet the solicitation requirements.”  Id.  The technical evaluation would include the following elements:  overall design; approach to qualification testing; logistics planning; experience risk assessment of qualification testing and achieved reliability for similar aircraft applications; and strategy for utilizing small businesses.  Id.  The agency would assign each proposal a technical rating and a technical risk rating.[1]  Id. at 65.  The technical rating would be an assessment of compliance with the solicitation requirements, considering “the benefits and detriments related to program performance and operations.”  Id. at 69.  The technical risk rating would evaluate “the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement.”  Id. at 60-70.  The technical risk rating would consider the potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, need for increased government oversight, and likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.  The experience element would only be evaluated for risk.  Id. at 65.  With regard to experience, the RFP required offerors to “provide information that describes the Offeror team’s (prime and subcontractors) relevant experience for DSP Inverter designs/applications or similar[.]”  Id.