BNUMBER:  B-276163 
DATE:  May 19, 1997
TITLE: NavCom Defense Electronics, Inc., B-276163, May 19, 1997
**********************************************************************

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:NavCom Defense Electronics, Inc.

File:     B-276163

Date:May 19, 1997

Richard B. Oliver, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, L.L.P., for the protester.
Scott T. Spear, Esq., Gorham & Gorham, for Integrity Air Services, 
Inc., an intervenor.
Clarence D. Long, III, Esq., and Capt. Sheila Isbell, Department of 
the Air Force, for the agency.
Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq. and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency's evaluation of the offerors' performance, and the source 
selection decision based upon that evaluation, was not reasonable 
where the agency evaluated the protester and the awardee as each being 
of low performance risk under the performance evaluation criterion 
without the record containing any basis upon which the agency could 
reasonably have determined that the awardee's demonstrated performance 
was, in accordance with the terms of the solicitation, the "same" as 
or "similar" to the solicitation requirements for which the protester 
was the incumbent contractor.

DECISION

NavCom Defense Electronics, Inc. protests the award of a contract to 
Integrity Air Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
F09603-95-R-81729, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the 
repair of multiple line items of the AN/ARN-118 TACAN (Tactical Air 
Navigation) system.  NavCom challenges the agency's assignment of a 
low performance risk rating to Integrity which served as the basis for 
the agency's decision to award to Integrity at a lower price.

We sustain the protest.

The TACAN system is a navigational system which provides pilots and 
flight control systems with navigational data, including bearing, 
range distance, velocity, course deviation, and audio identification 
information from a selected ground-based or airborne TACAN station.  
The TACAN system consists of the following five major components:  (1) 
a radio receiver/transmitter; (2) a radio receiver/transmitter 
control; (3) a digital to analog adapter; (4) an antenna; and (5) a 
mount.  The radio receiver/transmitter, control, and adapter contain 
numerous circuit cards and modules.  The TACAN system has more than 
15,000 components, with the RFP requiring the repair of 104 line items 
of various components.

The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside, contemplated the 
award of a firm, fixed-price contract for the base year and four 
1-year option periods to the offeror whose proposal represented the 
best value to the government pursuant to a  performance/price 
tradeoff.  The RFP stated that the two evaluation factors--performance 
and price--were considered of equal importance.[1]  Regarding the 
evaluation of an offeror's past and present performance, the RFP 
required offerors to submit information for current and completed 
contracts for "the same or similar efforts specified in the [RFP]."  
The RFP explained that the performance risk assessment "represents the 
Government evaluation team's judgment of the probability of an offeror 
successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offeror's 
demonstrated present and past performance."  In evaluating an 
offeror's performance, the agency's performance risk assessment team 
would consider the performance information provided by the offeror, 
along with responses to questionnaires sent to program managers and 
other relevant contracting officials.  Regarding price, the RFP stated 
that the extended prices for the basic and option quantities would be 
added together to arrive at the offeror's total evaluated price.

The RFP stated that all technically acceptable offerors would be 
ranked by evaluated price, and then would receive a performance risk 
assessment rating of low, moderate, high, or not applicable.  
According to the RFP, if the lowest evaluated price, technically 
acceptable offeror received a low performance risk rating, then this 
offeror's proposal would be considered to represent the best value to 
the government and award would be made to this offeror.  The RFP 
stated that the agency reserved the right to award a contract to other 
than the technically acceptable, lowest evaluated price offeror if 
that offeror was considered to have a moderate, high, or not 
applicable performance risk rating.

Eight small business concerns, including NavCom, the incumbent 
contractor, and Integrity, which had experience in repairing radio 
power supplies, submitted performance information and price proposals.  
In accordance with the evaluation scheme described above, the offerors 
were ranked according to price.  Integrity was ranked first (at a 
total price of $[deleted]) and NavCom was ranked fourth (at a total 
price of $[deleted]).  All offerors received low performance risk 
ratings.  Following the clarification of proposals and the submission 
of best and final offers (BAFO), the contracting officer determined 
that since Integrity submitted the lowest price and received a low 
performance risk rating, its proposal represented the best value to 
the government.

NavCom, the incumbent contractor for the repair of the TACAN system, 
challenges the agency's evaluation of Integrity's performance, 
contending that Integrity's experience in repairing radio power 
supplies is not for "the same or similar efforts specified in the 
[RFP]."  For this reason, NavCom, which received a low performance 
risk rating, maintains that Integrity should have received a 
performance risk rating of other than low, thereby requiring the 
agency to perform a performance/price tradeoff to determine which 
offeror's proposal represented the best value to the government, 
rather than determining NavCom and Integrity  essentially equal in 
terms of performance risk and awarding to Integrity based on its low 
price.

In reviewing a protest challenging the agency's evaluation of 
proposals, we examine the record to ensure that the agency's 
evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation 
criteria.  Ogden Support Servs., Inc., B-270012.2, Mar. 19, 1996, 96-1 
CPD  para.  177 at 5.  Here, absent any basis in the record for the agency's 
conclusion that Integrity's repair of radio power supplies was the 
"same" as or "similar" to the RFP requirements, we cannot conclude 
that the agency reasonably assigned the same low performance risk 
rating to Integrity as it assigned to NavCom, the incumbent 
contractor.

The RFP required offerors to submit information for current and 
completed contracts for "the same or similar efforts specified in the 
[RFP]."  Based on the agency's evaluation of this information, 
offerors were assigned a performance risk rating of low, moderate, 
high, or not applicable, corresponding to the agency's assessment "of 
the probability of an offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed 
effort based on the offeror's demonstrated present and past 
performance."  Integrity submitted information showing that it 
performed four contracts involving the repair of radio power supplies, 
which are components providing internal radio operating voltages.  
Repair of power supplies required a knowledge of direct and 
alternating current circuitry.  The total value of each of Integrity's 
contracts was significantly less than $1 million.  As evident from the 
schedule in the RFP, and as confirmed by the agency, power supplies 
are not a line item for repair under this RFP.  In contrast, the 
contractor for the repair of the TACAN system must possess knowledge 
of not only direct and alternating current circuitry, but also of 
analog and digital signals, timing networks, high frequency networks 
and electronics, pulsed electronics, pulse width decoding, synchro 
technology, built-in test circuitry, operation of the system's bearing 
and distance measurement signals, radio receiving technology, and 
pulsed transmission technology.  NavCom's prior contract was valued at 
more than $8 million.

Concerning the requirement that offerors have experience in performing 
the "same or similar" efforts specified in the RFP, that is, the 
repair of various components of the TACAN system exclusive of power 
supplies, the agency states that the performance risk assessment team

     "was fully aware of the protester's past satisfactory experience 
     with the [AN/]ARN-118 TACAN repair effort.  Likewise, the team 
     was fully aware that the remaining offerors did not have actual 
     experience with the [AN/]ARN-118, nor had they performed past 
     repair efforts of the size and magnitude of the instant effort 
     and acquisition.  Nonetheless, the evaluation team determined 
     that the offeror[s'] past and present experience was relevant, 
     and they reasonably assigned 'low-risk' ratings to each of the 
     offerors."

Thus, of the eight firms competing under this RFP, the agency concedes 
that only NavCom had experience which could be characterized as the 
"same" as that required by the RFP, that is, the multi-million dollar 
repair of the TACAN system.

In addition, the record lacks any basis upon which the agency could 
reasonably have concluded that Integrity's repair of power supplies 
was "similar" to the repair of components of the TACAN system 
exclusive of power supplies.  In this regard, the agency's performance 
risk assessment report references the RFP's "same or similar" effort 
requirement and notes that Integrity's prior performance was 
"relevant."  However, other than listing contract numbers, contracting 
activities, contract values at award, and delinquency rates, the 
performance risk assessment report contains no analysis of the basis 
upon which the agency determined that Integrity's "relevant" 
experience was "similar" to the experience required to repair the 
TACAN system.  Moreover, we do not find any support in the record for 
the low performance risk rating assigned to Integrity in light of 
information contained in the performance questionnaires completed for 
Integrity.

For example, one contracting officer for a contract for the repair of 
power supplies valued at a total of approximately $715,000 assigned a 
low performance risk rating to Integrity in responding to the 
question, "[b]ased on the contractor's performance record on this 
contract, [i.e., the power supply contract], how much risk would be 
involved in awarding future contracts to this contractor?"  This 
rating, however, was qualified by the statement that "I [the 
contracting officer] believe that the risk in awarding a [contract] to 
this contractor would be minimal provided it was for a similar type 
and scope effort."  Other individuals completing performance 
questionnaires for Integrity also raised concerns about the 
performance risk associated with Integrity performing future contracts 
based on its demonstrated prior performance.  In discussing 
Integrity's experience repairing power supplies, the agency states 
that:

     "[t]he 'scope' issue is a factor to consider, but it is not 
     controlling, especially when one considers the fact that this is 
     a 100% small business set-aside.  Very few small businesses have 
     experience with contracts the size of the [AN/]ARN-118 TACAN 
     effort; therefore, it becomes a question of policy whether to 
     award contracts to small businesses in order to get them 
     qualified and expand the contracting base."

While the agency's goal may be to expand the number of small 
businesses which can repair the TACAN system, the agency cannot 
disregard the terms of the RFP, as drafted, in evaluating an offeror's 
performance in terms of risk and in ultimately making its source 
selection decision based upon that underlying evaluation.[2]

In summary, only NavCom had experience which was the "same" as that 
required by the RFP.  There is no analysis in the record to support a 
conclusion that Integrity could reasonably have been determined to 
have had experience "similar" to the requirements in the RFP, or how 
in light of Integrity's demonstrated prior performance, reflected in 
the completed performance questionnaires, the firm was reasonably 
assigned a low performance risk rating.  In the absence of any support 
in the record for the agency's assignment of the same low performance 
risk rating to both offerors, we cannot conclude that the award to 
Integrity was reasonable.

Accordingly, we sustain the protest.  We recommend that if the RFP, as 
drafted, conveys the agency's needs, the agency reevaluate Integrity's 
performance in light of the "same or similar" requirement and document 
the basis for a particular performance risk rating.  If Integrity is 
determined to be of other than a low performance risk, then the agency 
should make a performance/price tradeoff in accordance with the terms 
of the RFP.  Depending on the results of that tradeoff, the agency 
should either continue the contract with Integrity or terminate 
Integrity's contract and award to NavCom.  If the RFP, as drafted, 
does not convey the agency's needs, then we recommend that the agency 
amend the RFP and request new BAFOs.  We also recommend that NavCom be 
reimbursed its costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including 
reasonable attorneys' fees.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.8(d)(1) (1997).  NavCom should submit its certified claim for costs 
to the contracting agency within 60 days of receiving this decision.  
4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(f)(1).

The protest is sustained.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The RFP did not require the submission of technical proposals.  
According to the RFP, any offeror determined to be responsive and 
responsible was considered technically acceptable.

2. The performance risk assessment report shows that the agency 
effectively waived the RFP's "same or similar" requirement for the 
other competing firms.