Oshkosh Defense, LLC (W56HZV-20-R-0072)

B-421506,B-421506.2,B-421506.3 Jun 12, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Oshkosh Defense, LLC, of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, protests the award of a contract to AM General, LLC (AMG), of South Bend, Indiana, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-20-R-0072, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for production of the joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV) family of vehicles (FoV). Oshkosh argues that the Army's evaluation of proposals, conduct of discussions, responsibility determination, and its selection decision were all unreasonable. 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: Oshkosh Defense, LLC File: B-421506; B-421506.2; B-421506.3 Date: June 12, 2023 Scott Arnold Esq., Justin A. Chiarodo, Esq., Stephanie M. Harden, Esq., Elizabeth N. Jochum, Esq., Michael J. Montalbano, Esq., Robyn N. Burrows, Esq., and David L. Bodner, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for the protester. Todd R. Overman, Esq., Richard W. Arnholt, Esq., Roee Talmor, Esq., and Adam R. Briscoe, Esq., Bass Berry & Sims, PLC, for AM General, LLC, the intervenor. Debra J. Talley, Esq., and April L. Neihsl, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest allegation that the agency unreasonably evaluated technical proposals is denied where the record confirms that the agency reasonably evaluated proposals in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, and any differences between the evaluations resulted from differences between the proposals. 2. Protest allegation that the agency unreasonably and unequally conducted discussions is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably identified its concerns with the protester’s proposal and did not conduct unequal discussions. 3. Protest allegation that the agency unreasonably conducted its cost realism assessment is denied where the record shows that the agency considered and understood the basis for the awardee’s proposed rates. DECISION Oshkosh Defense, LLC, of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, protests the award of a contract to AM General, LLC (AMG), of South Bend, Indiana, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV‑20‑R‑0072, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for production of the joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV) family of vehicles (FoV). Oshkosh argues that the Army’s evaluation of proposals, conduct of discussions, responsibility determination, and its selection decision were all unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 9, 2022, the Army issued the RFP for this “follow-on” production contract for the JLTV FoV program. Agency Report (AR), Tab 17, Conformed RFP at 1, 220.[1] The JLTV FoV consists of a base vehicle configured with different seating, platforms, and options--a four-seat variant, a two-seat variant, a companion trailer and chassis, and associated kits. Id. at 220. The four-seat variant includes two platforms, while the two‑seat variant includes one platform. The RFP contemplated the award of a single requirements contract with fixed-price and cost‑plus‑fixed-fee line items to be performed over a 5-year base period, and five 1‑year option periods. Id. at 33‑219, 419. Award would be made a on a best-value tradeoff basis considering three factors, primary technical, value adjusted total evaluated price (VATEP), and small business. RFP at 419. The primary technical factor consisted of three subfactors: production process, technology enhancement and architecture, and source control content. Id. The primary technical factor was slightly more important than the VATEP factor, which was significantly more important than the small business factor. Id. at 422. Regarding the primary technical subfactors, the production process subfactor was slightly more important than the technology enhancement and architecture subfactor, which was significantly more important than the source control content subfactor. RFP at 421. When evaluating the primary technical subfactor, the RFP provided that the agency would combine subfactor assessments into a single composite adjectival rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable. Id. at 423. The VATEP factor consisted of three components, including the evaluated contract cost/price, the technology enhancement adjustment, and the use of existing government-furnished property price adjustment. RFP at 424. The VATEP would be computed by subtracting the technology enhancement and use of existing government-furnished property price adjustments from the evaluated contract cost/price. Id. Only Oshkosh and AMG submitted proposals prior to the August 15 close of the solicitation period.