TITLE: B-299014; B-299014.2, L-3 Communications Corporation, January 16, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299014; B-299014.2
DATE: January 16, 2007
**********************************************************************
B-299014; B-299014.2, L-3 Communications Corporation, January 16, 2007
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: L-3 Communications Corporation
File: B-299014; B-299014.2
Date: January 16, 2007
Michael A. Hordell, Esq., Charles H. Carpenter, Esq., Sean P. Bamford,
Esq., and Heather Kilgore Weiner, Esq., Pepper Hamilton LLP, for the
protester.
Michael F. Mason, Esq., Thomas L. McGovern, III, Esq., and Michael D.
McGill, Esq., Hogan & Hartson LLP, for the intervenor.
Sherry Kinland Kaswell, Esq., Department of Interior, for the agency.
Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
In a negotiated procurement that provides for award on the basis of a
cost/technical tradeoff, protest that an agency unreasonably downgraded
the protester's offer to exceed the technical requirements is denied,
where, in accordance with the stated evaluation scheme, the agency
credited the protester's offer to exceed the requirements but concluded
that the risks associated with the protester's offer did not outweigh its
slight price advantage.
DECISION
L-3 Communications Corporation protests the award of a contract to
Lockheed Martin Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
1406-04-06-RP-60246, issued by GovWorks, a Department of Interior federal
acquisition center, for Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) Training
and Rehearsal System (TRS) engineering design and support for the
Department of the Air Force.[1] L-3 challenges the agency's evaluation of
its proposal and source selection decision.
We deny the protest.
The RFP, issued December 12, 2005, sought proposals for an "exemplar Joint
Terminal Attack Controller Virtual Trainer (JTAC VT) Dome, as well as a
prototype and/or enhanced interim training capability for a JTAC TRS
Deployable/Garrison System, 2^nd Generation JTAC training and rehearsal
simulation environment." RFP, Statement of Work (SOW), at 1. This training
system is intended to "emulate a tactical combat environment" for
ground-based joint terminal attack controllers.[2] Agency Report (AR), Tab
2, Acquisition Plan, at 1. The dome provides the JTAC immersive
environment, in which visual images are projected. RFP, SOW, at 1. The Air
Force currently has a JTAC VT dome located at the agency's Mesa Research
Site; this trainer was provided by L-3 under an earlier contract.[3]
Protest at 5.
Only Lockheed Martin and L-3 submitted proposals; both firms offered
replicas of the JTAC VT, having the same configuration as the Air Force's
current system located at the Mesa Research Site. Protest at 5. Award was
made to Lockheed Martin on March 22, 2005, and L-3 filed an agency-level
protest, which was denied. L-3 then filed a bid protest with the United
States Court of Federal Claims. In response to that protest, the agency
terminated Lockheed Martin's contract for the convenience of the
government, revised the RFP, and requested revised proposals.
As revised, the RFP requested fixed-price, labor hour, and cost
reimbursement proposals under a number of contract line items (CLIN) for a
1-year contract. CLIN 1, which was identified as the basic requirement,
was for the provision, on a fixed-price basis, of an "AGOS [Air Ground
Operations School] Dome with the hardware and software capability that
will meet or exceed the hardware and software capabilities of [the] Mesa
Research Site's (MRS) JTAC TRS," and for the installation of this dome at
Nellis Air Force Base (AFB), Nevada.[4] AR, Tab 9, Amended SOW, June 13,
2006, at 1-2. CLINs 2 through 4, which were identified as option
requirements, provided for the performance of various tasks under
fixed-labor-rate proposals. CLIN 2 was for "a proof of concept Interim
JTAC TRS capability at a deployed or garrison location." As part of this
effort, the contractor would provide
integrated software, hardware, and systems engineering expertise to
design technologies for scaling down and integrating current JTAC TRS
software to be transitioned to an interim training system for JTACs at a
deployed or garrison location.
Id. at 3. CLINs 5 and 6 were identified as cost reimbursement items with
identified cost ceilings for travel and materials. Id. at 8.
The RFP provided for award on a "best-value" basis, and identified the
following five evaluation factors: (1) management approach and technical
capabilities, (2) personnel qualifications, (3) organizational experience,
(4) past performance, and (5) price.[5] The firms were informed that
factors (1) through (3) were of equal importance and together were more
important than the past performance and price factors. The past
performance factor was stated to be more important than the price factor.
AR, Tab 9, Request for Revised Proposals, at 4.
Detailed proposal preparation instructions were provided. Among other
things, the firms were required to discuss their approach to accomplishing
the SOW, identify any anticipated major difficulties and problem areas,
and discuss recommended approaches for resolution of difficulties and
problem areas. Offerors were also to provide a complete list of equipment
provided under CLIN 1 and to provide resumes and letters of commitment for
key personnel. Id. at 2.
Revised proposals were received from L-3 and Lockheed Martin. While
Lockheed Martin again offered to provide an exact replica of the current
JTAC VT dome, L-3's revised proposal no longer did so, but instead offered
a JTAC VT dome with characteristics that exceeded the SOW requirements.
The revised proposals were evaluated as follows:[6]
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | L-3 |Lockheed Martin|
|------------------------------------------+-------------+---------------|
|Management approach/technical capabilities|Satisfactory | Very Good |
|------------------------------------------+-------------+---------------|
|Personnel qualifications | Very Good | Very Good |
|------------------------------------------+-------------+---------------|
|Organizational experience |Satisfactory | Excellent |
|------------------------------------------+-------------+---------------|
|Past performance | Excellent | Excellent |
|------------------------------------------+-------------+---------------|
|TOTAL NON-PRICE RATING |SATISFACTORY | VERY GOOD |
|------------------------------------------+-------------+---------------|
|Price | $[Deleted] | $3,143,462 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
AR, Tab 13, Technical Evaluation Consensus Report, at 5; Tab 16, Selection
Decision, at 10.
The evaluators recognized and credited L-3's revised proposal's offer of
enhancements to the existing JTAC dome that would exceed the SOW
requirements.[7] AR, Tab 13, Technical Evaluation Consensus Report, at 6.
L-3's overall "satisfactory" rating reflected the evaluators' consensus
judgment that, although L-3 had submitted a technical approach that had
several items that were "considered innovative and commendable" and had an
"excellent" past performance record that demonstrated the firm's ability
to perform the requested work, L-3's revised proposal contained a
significant deficiency and a number of weaknesses. Id. at 5-6. The
deficiency found by the evaluators was that L-3's proposal to [Deleted]
used by the agency's current JTAC dome with [Deleted] posed serious design
and integration risks that L-3 did not adequately address in its
proposal.[8] In this regard, the evaluators noted that L-3's "proposal did
not adequately address the technical risks, the cost-to-benefit trade-offs
in terms of system and human performance, or the long-term implications
regarding [Deleted]." Id. at 6-7. Among the weaknesses identified by the
evaluators was L-3's failure to identify all of the "critical/major
hardware that are part of the current dome" and its failure to identify
its program manager and systems engineers as key personnel and provide
resumes and letters of intent for these individuals. Id. at 6-8.
Lockheed Martin's overall "very good" rating reflected the evaluators'
judgment that the firm had submitted a sound technical proposal,
demonstrating an understanding of the SOW, logistics, and schedule. In
this regard, Lockheed Martin offered to provide an exact replica of the
current JTAC VT dome, which the evaluators viewed as "reduc[ing] risk as
much as possible" and suggested [Deleted]. The evaluators also noted
Lockheed Martin's "excellent" past peformance, which included one
evaluated strength and no weaknesses. Id. at 8; see Tab 16, Selection
Decision, at 9.
Based upon its evaluation of the firms' revised proposals, the technical
evaluation team recommended award to Lockheed Martin, finding that
Lockheed Martin's higher-priced, higher-rated "proposal provides the
lowest risk and the best overall value." AR, Tab 13, Technical Evaluation
Consensus Report, at 10. The GovWorks contracting officer reviewed the
proposals and evaluation report, and accepted the evaluators' consensus
technical evaluation judgment. In this regard, the contracting officer
noted that L-3's "approach varied from the SOW and L[-]3 did not provide a
thorough analysis how the new approach would benefit [the Air Force]
greater than the current requirement described in the SOW." AR, Tab 16,
Selection Decision, at 9. While recognizing L-3's $[Deleted] price
advantage over Lockheed Martin's proposed price, the contracting officer
concluded that Lockheed Martin's evaluated technical superiority
outweighed L-3's price advantage. Specifically, the contracting officer
found that
L-3[']s . . . proposal presents a slightly greater risk to the
Government and is lower in costs. Although L-3 offered the Government an
immediate cost savings, a life cycle cost versus performance (i.e.
system hardware, human performance, etc.) trade-off analysis has not
been conducted to identify the impact such a critical change would have
on the entire program. This analysis would cost the Government delay and
unanticipated costs.
Id. at 14. Although the contracting officer's selection decision could
have been clearer, the life cycle cost analysis, to which the contracting
officer referred, relates to the technical evaluation team's evaluated
deficiency in L-3's proposal with respect to [Deleted] and the evaluation
team's concern that L-3 had not addressed the life cycle cost impact of
its proposed approach. See AR, Tab 13, Technical Evaluation Consensus
Report, at 6-7. Award was made to Lockheed Martin. Following a written
debriefing, L-3 filed this protest.
L-3 challenges the agency's assessment of the evaluated deficiency
relating to L-3's offer to [Deleted]. L-3 complains that, although the
RFP, as amended, requested that offerors provide a dome with hardware and
software capability that "met or exceeded" the hardware and software
capabilities of the Air Force's existing dome, the agency's evaluation in
fact favored the offer of a replica dome. Protest at 16-18. L-3 argues
that assigning a deficiency to L-3's offer of [Deleted] either constitutes
the application of an unstated evaluation factor or indicates that the RFP
was ambiguous with regard to whether a system that exceeded existing
capabilities was really desired. Protester's Reply to Agency's Response at
6-7.
We do not agree that the agency applied an unstated evaluation factor in
assessing a deficiency with respect to L-3's offer to [Deleted] or that
the revised RFP was ambiguous as to whether a replica dome was desired by
the agency. The record simply does not support L-3's view that the agency
actually sought only a replica dome. The RFP informed offerors that they
could choose to offer a dome that either met or exceeded the stated
requirements. In this regard, the solicitation instructed offerors to
explain their approaches and identify any possible problems and solutions
to those problems. See AR, Tab 9, Request for Revised Proposals, at 2. The
record establishes that, in accordance with the solicitation's "best
value" scheme, the evaluators and selection official noted a number of
strengths and credited L-3 for its offer to provide a dome that exceeded
the technical requirements. See AR, Tab 13, Technical Evaluation Consensus
Report, at 6; Tab 16, Selection Decision, at 6. That the technical
strengths associated with L-3's offer to [Deleted], which exceeded the
technical requirements, were offset by an evaluated deficiency, concerning
the failure of L-3 to satisfactorily address the design and technical
risks associated with [Deleted], does not show, as L-3 believes, that the
agency actually sought only a replica of the hardware and software
currently used in the agency's existing dome.
L-3 also challenges the reasonableness of the agency's assessed deficiency
based on its offer to [Deleted]. As noted above, the evaluated deficiency
reflected the evaluators' concerns with a number of risks associated with
implementing L-3's proposed solution. Those concerns included the need to
[Deleted], possible conflicts with an on-going research and development
contract, and possible impact on the delivery schedule of the dome. In
addition, the evaluators noted that L-3's "proposal also states that the
[Deleted]." The evaluators also noted the L-3 did not address performing a
life cycle cost versus performance tradeoff analysis for this approach.
See AR, Tab 13, Technical Evaluation Consensus Report, at 6-7. L-3 argues,
citing pages 21 through 30 of its proposal, that it addressed the risks
associated with its proposed solution and that these risks were mitigated
using approaches described in its proposal. Protester's Comments at 13.
Based on our review, we agree with the agency and intervenor that L-3's
proposal does no more than cursorily address the risks associated with
L-3's technical approach. The proposal pages identified by L-3 primarily
identify the features and enhancements offered by its proposed [Deleted].
Although it is true that L-3 stated in its proposal that the proposed
[Deleted] was a "proven product" that was being used on a number of
training systems, see AR, Tab 12, L-3 Technical Proposal, at 22-23, this
does not address the evaluators' concerns that [Deleted] posed serious
implementation risks that could impact the delivery schedule, or address
their concerns with L-3's proposal of [Deleted].[9] In this regard, L-3
recognized in its proposal that use of the [Deleted] would require
modification of the [Deleted], and that there would be development costs
and schedule impact associated with this modification. See, AR, Tab 12,
L-3 Technical Proposal, at 28-30.
To rebut the agency's evaluation concerns, L-3 submitted with its comments
the declaration of an L-3 employee, who provides additional information
concerning the firm's proposed [Deleted] that L-3 argues establishes that
its offer to provide [Deleted] was not risky.[10] See Protester's
Comments, exh. 1, Declaration of Proposed Project Lead Engineer. This
additional information, however, was not provided to the agency during the
competition so that it could be evaluated. See Williamson County
Ambulance Serv., Inc., B-293811.5 et al., Dec. 15, 2004, 2005 CPD para. 5
at 5-6. In any event, we find that the additional information provided in
the declaration and in L-3's arguments do not establish that the agency's
concerns were unreasonable.
L-3 nevertheless argues that, as "the architect of the JTAC system," the
protester was obviously aware of what is required for L-3 to [Deleted] and
that therefore the agency's assignment of a deficiency for this approach
was unreasonable. See Protest at 21. It is an offeror's obligation,
however, to submit an adequately written proposal for the agency to
evaluate. See United Defense LP, B-286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD
para. 75 at 19. An agency is not required to base its technical evaluation
on a company's reputation and accept unsupported statements of capability,
especially where an RFP requires the offeror to explain and support its
proposed approach.
L-3 also challenges each of the agency's evaluated weaknesses in the
firm's technical proposal. However, we find, based on our review of the
contracting officer's selection decision, the weaknesses evaluated in
L-3's proposal were not material to her "best value" selection of Lockheed
Martin's proposal. Rather, the contracting officer focused and relied upon
the evaluated deficiency in L-3's proposal in concluding Lockheed Martin's
less risky proposal outweighed L-3's slight price advantage. See AR, Tab
16, Selection Decision, at 6, 9, and 14-15; see also Contracting Officer's
Response to Protester's Comments at 5 (L-3's proposal to [Deleted] was a
"key discriminator" between the two firms' proposal.) Therefore, even were
we to accept the protester's arguments that the weaknesses identified by
the agency lack a reasonable basis, the record does not establish that L-3
was prejudiced by the agency's evaluation in this regard.[11]
L-3 also complains that the agency's cost analysis was unreasonable
because the agency conducted a life-cycle cost evaluation of L-3's
fixed-price proposal to provide the JTAC dome. This argument has no
factual basis. The record establishes, as the agency repeatedly notes,
that a life-cycle cost analysis was not performed. The references in the
record to a life-cycle cost analysis, to which L-3 directs our attention,
actually relate to the technical evaluators' finding that L-3 had proposed
to provide [Deleted] for the JTAC dome and that L-3 had performed no
life-cycle cost analysis of the impact of this change. See AR, Tab 13,
Technical Evaluation Consensus Report, at 7.
Based on our review of the record, the agency acted reasonably and in
accordance with the revised RFP in determining that Lockheed Martin's
higher-rated proposal was the best value as compared to L-3's lower-priced
proposal that contained a significant deficiency.[12]
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
------------------------
[1] GovWorks, a franchise fund within Interior, provides contracting
services in support of other federal agencies on a fee-for-service basis.
[2] A "joint terminal attack controller" is defined within the Department
of Defense to be someone "who, from a forward position, directs the action
of combat aircraft engaged in close air support and other offensive air
operations." See
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/j/02965.html.
[3] L-3 and Lockheed Martin were the primary developers of the original
dome. Intervenor's Comments at 3; see AR, Tab 16, Selection Decision, at
14 ("Both offerors were intimately involved in the design and development
of the original JTAC VT dome.")
[4] The original SOW required the contractor to "[p]roduce replica current
configuration of the prototype JTAC Virtual Trainer (JTAC VT) Dome,
located at AFRL/HEA Mesa, AZ." RFP, SOW, at 2.
[5] A number of subfactors were also identified for factors (1) through
(4).
[6] The evaluators assigned ratings of "excellent" (the proposal contains
no proposal deficiencies or weaknesses, and demonstrates exceptional
understanding of services required to meet or exceed most contract
requirements); "very good" (the proposal contains no proposal deficiencies
and only a few minor weaknesses, and demonstrates a high quality of
understanding of the services required to meet or exceed some contract
requirements); "satisfactory" (the proposal contains no proposal
deficiencies and some weaknesses, and demonstrates understanding of the
services to meet contract requirements); "poor" (the proposal contains
deficiencies and significant weaknesses); and "unacceptable" (the proposal
has many deficiencies and/or gross omissions). AR, Tab 13, Technical
Evaluation Consensus Report, at 4.
[7] The technical evaluation team was comprised of technical experts from
the Air Force Research Laboratory. AR, Tab 16, Selection Decision, at 4.
[8] Because of this deficiency, L-3 proposal was evaluated as "poor" under
the "understanding of the work" subfactor to the management
approach/technical capabilities factor. AR, Tab 13, Technical Evaluation
Consensus Report, at 2.
[9] In addition, the contracting officer states that all of the
simulators, identified by L-3 as using its [Deleted], are "air
simulations" (that is, aircraft flight trainers), which the agency states
are significantly different from the ground simulation provided by the
JTAC dome. See Contracting Officer's Response to Protester's Comments at
5. "There is a difference in requirements or visual needs between air and
ground simulators and the viability of using L-3's proposed [Deleted] is
an unknown." Declaration of Evaluator, Dec. 15, 2006, para. 7. L-3 has
offered no rebuttal to these statements.
[10] L-3 also argues that its proposed [Deleted] approach was successfully
used in its performance of the [Deleted] Program for the Air Force and
that therefore this information "was too close at hand" to be ignored in
the evaluation of its proposal. Protester's Comments at 8. The agency
responds that its technical evaluators did not have any involvement with
this program that could validate L-3's proposed approach. See Declaration
of Evaluator, Dec. 15, 2006, para. 4. We find no basis in the record here
to apply the "close at hand" principle, given that there is no evidence
that the evaluators were aware or should have been aware of the [Deleted]
Program. See The MIL Corp., B-297508, B-297508.2, Jan. 26, 2006, 2006 CPD
para. 34 at 11-12.
[11] Prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest. Lithos
Restoration, Ltd., B-247003.2, Apr. 22, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 379 at 5.
[12] L-3 makes a number of other allegations, which we have reviewed and
find are without merit or were untimely filed with our Office.