Selex ES, Inc. (FA810222R0003)

B-420799 Sep 06, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Selex ES, Inc., of Overland Park, Kansas, challenges the terms of a solicitation under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8102-22-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Air Force for development of a portable tactical air navigation system. The protester argues that the terms of the solicitation are unduly restrictive of competition because they can be reasonably interpreted as requiring offerors to meet the navigation system's flight check qualification and readiness level requirements at the time of proposal submission, rather than after award during performance of the contract. We sustain 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: Selex ES, Inc. File: B-420799 Date: September 6, 2022 Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James M. Larkin, Esq., The Larkin Law Group LLP, for the protester. Dana B. Pashkoff, Esq., and Jessica C. Abrahams, Esq., Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, for Thales USA Inc., Airspace Mobility Solutions, the intervenor. Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Josephine Farinelli, Esq., and Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Emily R. O’Hara, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the terms of a solicitation is sustained where the solicitation contains an ambiguity regarding when certain requirements must be met in order for proposals to be found technically acceptable. DECISION Selex ES, Inc., of Overland Park, Kansas, challenges the terms of a solicitation under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8102-22-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Air Force for development of a portable tactical air navigation system. The protester argues that the terms of the solicitation are unduly restrictive of competition because they can be reasonably interpreted as requiring offerors to meet the navigation system’s flight check qualification and readiness level requirements at the time of proposal submission, rather than after award during performance of the contract. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on May 3, 2022, pursuant to the procedures of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, seeks proposals for the replacement of a man-portable tactical air navigation system (MP TACAN). Agency Report (AR), Tab 52, RFP at 1, 1605;[1] AR, Tab 1, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 20. A TACAN is a navigation system used by military and civilian aircraft for landing at or flying between airports and landing fields. An MP TACAN is a small, lightweight rugged version of a TACAN that can easily be carried by two people. See AR, Tab 10, Government Industry Day Presentation Slides. The Air Force anticipates award of a single fixed‑price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, where the agency will place orders for a 5-year base period and one 2-year option period. RFP at 682-721, 795, 1577, 1605; COS at 21. The solicitation contemplates award will be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors: technical, technical risk, and price. RFP at 1605-1606. Under the technical factor, proposals will be evaluated as either acceptable or unacceptable. Id. at 1605. For proposals found to be technically acceptable, the RFP explains that tradeoffs will only be made between technical risk and price, with technical risk and price being “approximately equal” in importance. Id. at 1607. With respect to the technical factor, the RFP provides that the evaluation will be based on each offeror’s approach for meeting the requirements listed in six subfactors: systems requirements document (SRD) cross-reference; SRD requirements; SRD non-compliance; small business participation; delivery requirements; and contract data requirements list data rights. Id. at 1607-1608. Relevant here, the RFP requires offerors to, among other things, perform a successful flight check[2] and meet Technology Readiness Level 8 (TRL8)[3] and Manufacturing Readiness Level 9 (MRL9)[4] requirements. RFP at 188, 232, 235, 1607-1608. After the issuance of the solicitation, Selex contacted the agency to express its concerns regarding what the firm viewed as conflicting language in the RFP. Selex asserted that the solicitation was unclear whether the flight check requirement is due at the time of proposal submission or after award, and the protester requested the RFP be revised to provide clarity. AR, Tab 47, Selex Req. to Revise RFP. The Air Force responded that it would not amend the solicitation because, in the agency’s view, the RFP language is clear. AR, Tab 48, Agency Resp. to Selex Req. at 5.