TITLE:  Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc., B-293299.3; B-293299.4, August 3, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-293299.3; B-293299.4
DATE:  August 3, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc.

   File:            B-293299.3; B-293299.4

   Date:              August 3, 2004

   William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Benjamin A.
Winter, Esq., and Julia M. Kiraly, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester.

   Tenley A. Carp, Esq., and Nicole C. Farrar, Esq., McGuire Woods, for
Spiral Aviation Training Company, the intervenor.

   Sharon H. Sachs, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.

   Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated technical proposals for flight
simulators and instructor training is denied, where evaluation reflected
the reasoned judgment of the source selection authority, based on a
detailed comparative assessment of strengths and weaknesses in the
proposals in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. 

   DECISION

   Manufacturing Engineering Systems, Inc. (MES) protests the Department of
the Navy's award of a contract to Spiral Aviation Training Company
(SATCO), under request for proposals (RFP) No.A N61399-03-R-0084, for two
flight training devices (FTD) and instructor training for TC-12B
aircraft.  MES challenges the reasonableness of the agency's technical
evaluation.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   The RFP provided for award of a fixed-price
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracta**a**with a base period
of 3 years, 8.5 months, and a 1-year option period followed by a 3.5-month
option perioda**a**to support the TC-12B command aircraft crew training
program by furnishing certified flight instructors, two TCa**12B FTDs,
support personnel to operate and maintain the FTDs, and any additional
labor required to supervise and administer classroom and simulator
training.  (The government will provide the approved course
curricula/syllabi, as well as facilities at Naval Air Station, Corpus
Christi, Texas.)  The FTDs were required to simulate the performance and
functional operation of the TC-12B aircraft, meeting at least the Federal
Aviation Administration's (FAA) Level 6 FTD certification requirements for
fidelity and realism of simulation.  In addition, the FTDs were required
to have a minimum 200-degree horizontal (including 100-degree left and
100-degree right) by a 40-degree vertical field-of-view, and simulate
meteorological and day/night conditions.  TC-12B instructors were to
possess minimum training, experience, and qualifications--such as being
FAA certified or logging a minimum number of flight hours--which the RFP
stated were "prerequisite[s]" to performing as TCa**12B  instructors. 
However, the RFP also stated that the government would provide "initial
instructor training leading to qualification" at no cost to the
contractor.  RFP at 27-28.

   Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous
to the government considering three evaluation factors (in descending
order of importance):  (1) technical capability, including equally
weighted subfactors for training equipment and instructor personnel,
administration, scheduling and quota throughput capabilities, and risk
mitigation, delivery and transition plans; (2) past performance; and (3)
price.  The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated under the
technical capability factor for both technical merit and proposal risk,
while a performance risk rating would be assigned under the past
performance factor.   

   Four proposals were received from three offerors by the closing time. 
Both MES and SATCO submitted proposals to provide two FTDs and instructor
training.  MES also submitted an alternate proposal that was essentially
the same as its base proposal, but included [REDACTED].  After
establishing a competitive range consisting of the three proposals
submitted by SATCO and MES, the Navy first conducted discussions and then
requested final proposal revisions.  

   A technical evaluation team (TET) evaluated the technical proposals; a
past performance evaluation team evaluated the past performance proposals;
and a price evaluation team evaluated the price proposals.  These teams
reported their findings to the source selection evaluation board (SSEB),
which assessed the significance of the evaluated proposal strengths and
weaknesses.  The SSEB reported its findings to the source selection
authority (SSA), who concurred with the SSEB's findings, and rated
proposals as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|A                          | MES 1 (Base) |    MES 2     |    SATCO     |
|                           |              | (Alternate)  |              |
|---------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|Technical Capability       |    Highly    | Satisfactory | Outstanding  |
|                           | Satisfactory |              |              |
|                           |              | Medium Risk  |   Low Risk   |
|                           |   Low Risk   |              |              |
|---------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|A |Training Equipment &    |    Highly    | Satisfactory | Outstanding  |
|  |Instructor Personnel    | Satisfactory |              |              |
|  |                        |              | Medium Risk  |   Low Risk   |
|  |                        |   Low Risk   |              |              |
|  |------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|  |Administration,         |    Highly    |    Highly    | Outstanding  |
|  |Scheduling & Quota      | Satisfactory | Satisfactory |              |
|  |Throughput Capabilities |              |              |   Low Risk   |
|  |                        |   Low Risk   |   Low Risk   |              |
|  |------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|  |Risk Mitigation,        | Satisfactory | Satisfactory |    Highly    |
|  |Delivery & Transition   |              |              | Satisfactory |
|  |Plans                   |   Low Risk   | Medium Risk  |              |
|  |                        |              |              |   Low Risk   |
|---------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|Past Performance           |Very Low Risk |Very Low Risk |Very Low Risk |
|---------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|Price                      |$10,527,035.28|$12,548,598.35|$12,436,452.00|
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   SSA Decision at 6, 10, 14, 16. 

   As an initial matter, the SSA determined not to award the contract to MES
on the basis of its alternate proposal for the addition of [REDACTED]. 
The SSA discounted MES's suggestion that [REDACTED] would increase student
training capability by replacing aircraft training time with [REDACTED]. 
The SSA noted that it takes a very high-fidelity visual system and
trainer, with a level of fidelity well in excess of that of the FAA
LevelA 6A FTDs required under the solicitation, to even consider replacing
an aircraft training mission with [REDACTED].  ([REDACTED])  The SSA
concluded that the level of expertise of the TC-12B student pilots at this
stage of their training was such as to require actual aircraft training
missions.  Moreover, the SSA viewed as a major weakness the fact that
incorporating [REDACTED] into the training would require a change in the
course syllabus; according to the SSA, this change would take about
2A years and require considerable expense to implement, and was "neither
desired nor needed."  Id. at 9-10.  The SSA concluded that there was
"considerable doubt that [MES's] [a]lternate approach can be incorporated
and utilized without the potential for disruption to cost, schedule, and
perhaps performance."  Id. at 9, 16.    

   In comparing MES's base proposal to SATCO's proposal, the SSA recognized
that MES's proposal offered a number of technical strengths.  For example,
the SSA recognized that MES proposed to provide instructor training
through a subcontractor that is the incumbent contractor for these
services, and thus had available an "established cadre of qualified
instructors."  Id. at 17.  The SSA, on the other hand, noted that not only
had SATCO proposed a satisfactory staffing approach for instructors, but,
in addition, because it was the original equipment manufacturer of the
FTDs currently used by the Navy (as well as the new FTDs proposed by
SATCO), it could provide the agency with a "wealth of experienced
technicians" to maintain the simulators at the highest state of
readiness.  Id. at 11-12. 

   Furthermore, the SSA determined that SATCO's proposed FTDs offered
capabilities that significantly exceeded the solicitation requirements in
a beneficial way.  For example, the SSA noted that SATCO's proposed FTDs
included a number of FAA [REDACTED] components, that is, components that
deliver a more realistic aircraft performance and flight environment, and
thus more closely simulate the actual aircraft, than is the case with the
Level 6 components that were minimally required under the solicitation. 
Some of the [REDACTED] components cited by the SSA were SATCO's proposed
[REDACTED].  Id. at 6-8, 17.  In addition, the SSA also identified a
number of other "value added" benefits, such as [REDACTED], and the
ability to [REDACTED].  The SSA noted with respect to SATCO's proposal of
[REDACTED], which was not offered by MES, that currently the only
opportunity for students to use [REDACTED] was in the actual aircraft; the
SSA found that including a [REDACTED] in the proposed FTD would afford
students the beneficial opportunity to respond to [REDACTED] phenomena
that are either unavailable during actual training flights or are too
risky to fly in for training purposes.  The SSA also determined to be
advantageous SATCO's proposal of state-of-the-art equipment, including
[REDACTED], since this would not only enhance training, but also would
greatly increase reliability and reduce maintenance.  Further, the SSA
found that SATCO's proposal of [REDACTED] that are adjustable on-line,
[REDACTED] to work with the government scheduler, and a reduction from the
RFP's requirement of 48-hour notice to only [REDACTED] notice in the event
that premium time was required would provide a "definite benefit to the
government" in lessening administrative burden, increasing efficiency, and
allowing scheduling flexibility in a dynamic training environment.  Id. at
18.

   Given the extensive, beneficial technical enhancements provided by SATCO,
including more realistic simulator training, better reliability and
maintenance, more efficient scheduling, and increased flexibility in
scheduling student time, the SSA determined that SATCO's proposal was
technically superior to MES's.  The SSA further determined that, in view
of SATCO's outstanding technical approach and excellent past performance,
SATCO's proposal offered the best value to the government, notwithstanding
the 18A percent differential in price.  Upon learning of the resulting
award to SATCO, and after being debriefed, MES filed this protest with our
Office.

   Where an evaluation is challenged, our Office will not reevaluate
proposals, but instead will examine the record to determine whether the
agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with stated evaluation
criteria and applicable statutes and regulations.  U.S. Facilities, Inc.,
B-293029, B-293029.2, Jan. 16, 2004, at 6.   

   Based on our review of the record, we find that the agency reasonably
determined SATCO's proposal to be superior under the technical capability
factor to MES's base and alternate proposals.  In this regard, as noted
above, the SSA found that SATCO's proposal offered a number of exceptional
enhancements that would significantly benefit the training process.  These
included:  [REDACTED] and other components that delivered a more realistic
aircraft performance and flight environment, such as [REDACTED].  In
addition, SATCO's proposal of [REDACTED], and reduction in the notice
required for premium time were determined to be beneficial in lessening
administrative burden, increasing efficiency, and allowing scheduling
flexibility in a dynamic training environment.[1]  

   MES has furnished no basis to question the agency's judgment that these
advantages warranted a finding that SATCO's proposal was superior under
the technical capability factor.  For example, MES asserts that the SSA
failed to give its proposals sufficient credit for offering [REDACTED] or
better components ([REDACTED]), or an expanded field-of-view.  However,
our review confirms the agency's position that SATCO proposed many more
[REDACTED] or better components, which would lead to a more realistic
simulator environment than offered by MES.  Further, while MES, like
SATCO, proposed a visual system with an expanded field-of-view, the Navy
reports that SATCO, unlike MES, proposed a [REDACTED], which is required
for [REDACTED] certification; according to the agency, SATCO's [REDACTED]
system provides [REDACTED] than does MES's display system.  Agency Report
at 33-34; Agency Supplemental Report at 28-29.  Likewise, while MES
asserts that the agency failed to credit its proposals with also offering
state-of-the-art equipment, the agency notes that the state-of-the-art
equipment cited by MES primarily consisted of upgrades to components of
the existing FTDs proposed by MES.  In contrast, notes the agency, SATCO
was offering new FTDs, the reliability and maintainability of which were
greater than that of MES's upgraded devices.

   MES contends that the agency ignored the fact that SATCO does not
currently have available trained TC-12B instructors.  As noted by the
agency, however, the RFP did not require trained instructors with TC-12B
experience at the outset of the contract, but instead provided that the
government would provide initial training.  RFP atA 27a**28.  The agency
maintains that SATCO furnished reasonable assurances that it would be able
to adequately staff the training requirement, including plans to
aggressively recruit incumbent instructors upon award.  According to the
agency, historically, in a transition from one contractor to another, a
large percentage of the incumbent instructors accept positions with the
new contractor.  In addition, the agency notes that SATCO further proposed
to provide additional back-up capability by cross-training experienced
personnel from a teaming partner that holds a much larger Navy pilot
training contract.  In these circumstances, we find that the agency could
reasonably conclude that SATCO would be able to furnish qualified
instructor pilots.  While MES also argues that its proposals posed less
risk because it already had instructors in place, we note that the agency
specifically recognized MES's advantage in this regard, and assigned MES's
base proposal a low risk.[2]  Further, MES has not shown that SATCO's
proposal was not also entitled to a low risk rating, since SATCO, unlike
MES, is the original equipment manufacturer for its proposed FTDs and thus
is more likely to be able to maintain its simulators at the highest state
of readiness.

   MES asserts that the individual technical evaluator comments do not
support the ultimate consensus findings of the TET, SSEB, or the SSA. 
However, we note that most of MES's examples relate to isolated evaluator
comments from the initial evaluation, which appear to have been addressed
through discussions.  In any case, the overriding concern in the
evaluation process is that the final results accurately reflect the actual
merits of proposals, not that they be mechanically traceable back to the
isolated comments or ratings of individual evaluators.  Dragon Servs.,
Inc., Ba**255354, Feb. 25, 1994, 94-1 CPD P 151 at 11.  Here, the SSA's
award decision reflected a well-reasoned and thorough assessment of the
relative strengths and weaknesses of proposals consistent with the RFP's
evaluation criteria.  Although MES disagrees with this judgment, it has
not shown it to be unreasonable.  UNICCO Gov't Servs., Inc., B-277658,
Nov. 7, 1997, 97-2 CPD PA 134 atA 7.[3] 

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] As for MES's alternate proposal, our review supports the
reasonableness of the agency's determination that not only was SATCO's
technical proposal superior based on the significant enhancements
discussed above, but in addition, MES's proposal to [REDACTED] was
unlikely to benefit training and, because of the expense and time required
to change the syllabus to incorporate [REDACTED] into the training, had
the potential for significant disruption to schedule and perhaps
performance.

   [2] Again, MES's alternate proposal was assessed a higher risk as a result
of the risks associated with the integration of [REDACTED] into the
curriculum.  As discussed above, we find the agency's position in this
regard to be reasonable.

   [3] MES also complains that the agency improperly weighted the technical
capability subfactors in assigning SATCO's proposal higher technical
ratings than MES's proposals.  However, we find no basis to question the
agency's application of the subfactor weights; the evaluation record
furnishes no basis for questioning SATCO's evaluated technical advantages
or otherwise concluding that MES was superior under any of the technical
capability subfactors.