Avon Protection Systems, Inc. (N00024-21-R-6410)

B-421102.5 Aug 09, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Avon Protection Systems, Inc. (Avon), of Cadillac, Michigan, requests that we recommend the firm be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging the scope of the agency's corrective action taken in response to Avon's previous protest challenging the agency's evaluation and award made under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-21-R-6410. The Department of the Navy issued the RFP for the production of a multi-mission underwater breathing apparatus and associated services. The requester contends the agency failed to take prompt corrective action in response to a clearly meritorious protest ground. We grant the request. 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: Avon Protection Systems, Inc.--Costs File: B-421102.5 Date: August 9, 2023 Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., and Michael J. Maroulis, Esq., Haynes and Boone, LLP, for the protester. Stuart J. Anderson, Esq., and Gwendolyn A. Iaci, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Anh-Thi H. Le, Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request that GAO recommend reimbursement of protest costs is granted where challenge to the agency’s conduct of discussions as part of corrective action taken in response to an earlier protest was clearly meritorious and the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action. DECISION Avon Protection Systems, Inc. (Avon), of Cadillac, Michigan, requests that we recommend the firm be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging the scope of the agency’s corrective action taken in response to Avon’s previous protest challenging the agency’s evaluation and award made under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-21-R-6410. The Department of the Navy issued the RFP for the production of a multi-mission underwater breathing apparatus and associated services. The requester contends the agency failed to take prompt corrective action in response to a clearly meritorious protest ground. We grant the request. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on June 24, 2021, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, seeking the production of a Multi-Mission Underwater Breathing Apparatus (MMUBA), required support equipment, and associated engineering support services. Agency Report (AR) for B-421102 et al., encl. 2.0, Conformed RFP at 1, 172. The Navy explained that the MMUBA is an underwater breathing apparatus required to support a variety of military diving operations and practices, such as deep or shallow water diving, managing heavy and stationary workloads, and swimming appreciable distances. Contracting Officer’s Statement for B-421102 et al., at 1. The RFP contemplated the award of a single contract, with fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, and cost-reimbursable contract line items, with a 1‑year base period of performance and six, 1-year option periods. Id. at 1. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three evaluation factors: (1) technical/management;[1] (2) past performance; and (3) cost/price. RFP at 174. The RFP explained that the technical/management factor was more important than past performance, and both factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price. Id. The Navy previously determined that the final proposal submitted by Chase Defense Partners, Inc. (Chase), of Hampton, Virginia, represented the best value to the agency; the Navy made award to Chase on or about September 9, 2022. Following a debriefing, Avon filed a protest with our Office on September 26. Avon argued, among other things, the Navy’s evaluation of Chase’s proposal was unreasonable and inconsistent with the terms of the RFP, where multiple aspects of Chase’s technical solution failed to meet the minimum performance requirements identified in the solicitation. Following several rounds of briefing, our Office held an outcome prediction alternative dispute resolution (ADR) teleconference call with the parties. During this call, the GAO attorney assigned to the protest advised that the protest would likely be sustained, in part, with respect to the Navy’s evaluation of Chase’s proposal, and specifically, whether the agency reasonably determined that Chase’s technical solution met various performance specifications or other solicitation requirements. Following the ADR teleconference call, the Navy subsequently represented that it intended to take actions that would render the protest academic, specifically, that the agency would reevaluate both Avon’s and Chase’s technical proposals.