Miltope Corporation (W15QKN23R0012)

B-422799,B-422799.2 Nov 07, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Miltope Corporation, of Hope Hull, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to DRS Network & Imaging Systems, LLC (DRS), of Melbourne, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-23-R-0012, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) for fire control systems for mortars and fielding activity. The protester challenges the agency's conduct of discussions, evaluation of proposals, and best-value tradeoff source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Miltope Corporation File: B-422799; B-422799.2 Date: November 7, 2024 Aron C. Beezley, Esq. and Gabrielle A. Sprio, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Victoria Dalcourt Angle, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for DRS Network & Imaging Systems, LLC, the intervenor. Lawrence M. Brady, Esq., and Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency’s conduct of discussions is denied where the record demonstrates the discussions were meaningful, equal, and not misleading; typographical error in discussion letter did not competitively prejudice the protester. 2. Protest challenging evaluation of proposals is denied where the record shows the evaluation largely was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, and to the extent evaluation errors occurred they did not result in competitive prejudice to the protester. 3. Protest challenging the best-value tradeoff is denied where the record reflects the source selection authority was aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each proposal when selecting a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal for award. DECISION Miltope Corporation, of Hope Hull, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to DRS Network & Imaging Systems, LLC (DRS), of Melbourne, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-23-R-0012, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) for fire control systems for mortars and fielding activity. The protester challenges the agency’s conduct of discussions, evaluation of proposals, and best-value tradeoff source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 20, 2023, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, the agency issued the solicitation on an unrestricted basis seeking to award a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with both fixed-price and cost- reimbursement contract line item numbers (CLINs). Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 1-3, 124, 136.[1] The contract would include five 1-year ordering periods, have a minimum guarantee of $1 million, and a maximum value of $99.1 million. Id. at 2-3. The solicited requirement is for fire control systems for mortars and fielding activity (Firecon-Pro), and “will include the efforts required to develop, procure, produce, field, sustain, and support the United States Army’s Mortar Fire Control Systems (MFCS).” Id. at 2. The required services also include “systems engineering, technical, management, repair, warranty, and New Equipment Training support services.” Id. The solicitation established that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following four factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical; (2) past performance; (3) cost/price; and (4) small business participation. RFP at 136. The three non-cost factors combined were significantly more important than cost/price. Id. The technical factor included three subfactors: (a) fielding/training; (b) manufacturing/quality process control; and (c) management plan, which the agency would evaluate through consideration of offerors’ responses to a sample task order provided as RFP attachment 4. Id. The fielding/training and manufacturing/quality process control subfactors were of equal importance, and were each more important than the management plan subfactor. Id. Relevant here, the solicitation provided the agency would assign each of the technical subfactors an adjectival rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable, and then would assign one of these adjectival ratings as the overall technical factor rating.[2] Id. at 137. Further, the solicitation set forth that “[i]n order to be considered for award,” a proposal must receive “a rating of no less than Acceptable/Green” for each of the technical subfactors as well as the overall technical factor. Id. at 136. The agency received four timely proposals, including those submitted by Miltope and DRS. AR, Tab 13, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 3.