Bravura Information Technology Systems, Inc. (W56KGY-20-R-0017)

B-418755 Aug 18, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bravura Information Technology Systems, Inc. (BITS), of Aberdeen, Maryland, protests the proposed sole-source award of a contract to TCOM, L.P., of Columbia, Maryland, announced under notice No. W56KGY-20-R-KSA_PSST, issued by the Department of the Army for aerostat systems and related services to be acquired on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). BITS argues that the agency unreasonably has determined to acquire the aerostat systems on a sole-source basis rather than competitively. 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:  Bravura Information Technology Systems, Inc.   File:  B-418755 Date:  August 18, 2020 E. Sanderson Hoe, Esq., J. Hunter Bennett, Esq., Evan R. Sherwood, Esq., and Brooke Stanley, Covington & Burling, LLP, for the protester. Richard P. Rector, Esq., and Ryan P. Carpenter, Esq., DLA Piper LLP- US, for TCOM, L.P., the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., and David A. Machado, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s decision to execute a foreign military sales contract on a sole-source basis is denied where record shows that protester is not capable of meeting the buyer’s requirements. DECISION   Bravura Information Technology Systems, Inc. (BITS), of Aberdeen, Maryland, protests the proposed sole-source award of a contract to TCOM, L.P., of Columbia, Maryland, announced under notice No. W56KGY-20-R-KSA_PSST, issued by the Department of the Army for aerostat systems and related services to be acquired on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).  BITS argues that the agency unreasonably has determined to acquire the aerostat systems on a sole-source basis rather than competitively.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND This acquisition is being conducted under the authority of the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 2751-2799aa-2, which authorizes the Department of Defense to enter into contracts for purposes of resale to foreign countries or international organizations.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 3, Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA), at 1.  The record shows that the Army entered into an LOA between itself and the KSA that contemplates the sale to the KSA of a quantity of 10 aerostat systems each consisting of an aerostat envelope (essentially a large, lighter-than-air, blimp-like envelope measuring between 28 and 35 meters), a ground control station, a mobile mooring platform, a transportable office facility, and a lightweight payload enclosure and tether cable.  Id. at 14.  The LOA further specified certain performance capabilities, including that the systems have to be capable of lifting a payload of up to 500 kilograms (1,100 pounds), capable of operating at an altitude of 2,440 meters (8,000 feet) and capable of operating at wind speeds of up to 55 knots, and surviving at wind speeds of 75 knots when moored.  Id. In connection with the KSA’s requirement, the agency conducted extensive market research to determine whether there were one or more firms capable of meeting the parameters specified in the LOA for the aerostat systems by issuing a series of requests for information (RFIs) and providing draft specifications and performance work statements to enable prospective concerns to identify their capabilities in relation to the requirement.  AR, exhs. 2A-2E, Various Notices. Based on the responses to the market research, the agency prepared a market research report that concluded that only TCOM was capable of fulfilling the requirement.  Although BITS provided information in response to the agency’s market research, the agency nonetheless concluded that it was not capable of performing the requirement.  The principal basis for the agency’s finding was that BITS was not an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the aerostat systems but, rather, was only an integrator that would have to purchase the aerostat systems from another source.  AR, exh. 4, Market Research Report, at 10.  After concluding its market research, the agency published its notice that it intended to acquire the aerostat systems on a sole-source basis from TCOM.  AR, exh.