L3Harris Technologies Integrated Systems LP (W58SFN-23-R-0060)

B-422943,B-422943.2 Dec 23, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights L3Harris Technologies Integrated Systems L.P., of Greenville, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC), of Sparks, Nevada, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W58SFN-23-R-0060, issued by the Department of the Army for an integrated intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft system. The protester challenges multiple aspects of the agency's evaluation of proposals, including the evaluation of the protester's own proposal as technically unacceptable. The protester also alleges that SNC was ineligible for award because SNC submitted its proposal under its corporate entity name after it had converted to a limited liability company. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. 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: L3Harris Technologies Integrated Systems L.P. File: B-422943; B-422943.2 Date: December 23, 2024 Craig A. Holman, Esq., Kara L. Daniels, Esq., Thomas A. Pettit, Esq., and Nicole Williamson, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholar LLP, for the protester. Marques O. Peterson, Esq., J. Matthew Carter, Esq., Dinesh C. Dharmadasa, Esq., and Aleksey R. Dabbs, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for Sierra Nevada Company, LLC, the intervenor. Debra J. Talley, Esq., and Christopher C. Schwan, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that agency disparately evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows that the differences in the evaluation arose from differences in the respective proposals. 3. Protest arguing that awardee was ineligible for award because the awardee submitted its proposal under its corporate entity name after it had converted to a limited liability company is denied where the record shows that the awardee effectuated its conversion and name change in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. 4. Protester that was properly evaluated as technically unacceptable and would therefore not be eligible for award is not an interested party to raise other challenges to agency’s evaluation and award decision. DECISION L3Harris Technologies Integrated Systems L.P., of Greenville, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC), of Sparks, Nevada, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W58SFN-23-R-0060, issued by the Department of the Army for an integrated intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft system. The protester challenges multiple aspects of the agency’s evaluation of proposals, including the evaluation of the protester’s own proposal as technically unacceptable. The protester also alleges that SNC was ineligible for award because SNC submitted its proposal under its corporate entity name after it had converted to a limited liability company.[1] We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND The Army issued the solicitation on September 5, 2023, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, seeking proposals to provide integration, testing, validation, production, and initial operation of High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation Systems (HADES) for government‑furnished aerial‑intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 4‑6; Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 4; AR, Tab 3, RFP amend. 2 at 1‑2.[2] The solicitation contemplated the award of an indefinite‑delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, with a 5‑year base ordering period and seven 1‑year option periods. RFP at 2. The contract would include fixed-price, cost‑plus-fixed-fee, cost-plus-incentive-fee, and cost‑no‑fee contract line items, with a minimum ordering quantity of one integrated aircraft and a maximum ordering quantity of 14 integrated aircraft, for an estimated total contract value of $991,278,818. Id. The RFP provided for a phased evaluation, where offerors were to submit required security information in phase one, which would be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable under an “entry gate criteria” to “assess respondents’ potential to comply with the security requirements.” Id. at 136.