TITLE: B-299150; B-299150.2; B-299150.3; B-299150.4; B-299150.5, ITT Electronic Systems, Radar Systems--Gilfillan, February 2, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299150; B-299150.2; B-299150.3; B-299150.4; B-299150.5
DATE: February 2, 2007
****************************************************************************************************************************
B-299150; B-299150.2; B-299150.3; B-299150.4; B-299150.5, ITT Electronic Systems, Radar Systems--Gilfillan, February 2, 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: ITT Electronic Systems, Radar Systems--Gilfillan

   File: B-299150; B-299150.2; B-299150.3; B-299150.4; B-299150.5

   Date: February 2, 2007

   Philip J. Davis, Esq., Rand L. Allen, Esq., Nicole P. Wishart, Esq., Jon
   W. Burd, Esq., and John R. Prairie, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the
   protester.

   Mark D. Colley, Esq., Cameron W. Fogle, Esq., and Stuart W. Turner, Esq.,
   Holland & Knight LLP, for Raytheon Co., an intervenor.

   Jeffrey I. Kessler, Esq., and Wade L. Brown, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel
   Command, for the agency.

   Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest challenging award of a sole-source contract based on alleged
   changes to the agency's requirements, which served as the basis for the
   sole-source determination, is premature where the agency has not finalized
   any changes to its requirements and there have been no modifications to
   the sole-source contract reflecting any of the changed requirements
   alleged by the protester.

   DECISION

   ITT Electronic Systems, Radar Systems--Gilfillan (ITT) protests the
   decision of the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM), Department
   of the Army, to award a sole-source contract to Raytheon Company under
   request for proposals (RFP) No. W31P4Q-05-R-0338, for Air Traffic
   Navigation, Integration and Coordination System (ATNAVICS) and Fixed-Base
   Precision Approach Radar (FBPAR) hardware, spares, and first article
   testing, as well as FBPAR installation, site survey, site design, system
   refurbishment and engineering services for fiscal years 2006 through 2010.

   We dismiss the protest.

   On August 3, 2005, the Army posted a pre-solicitation notice on the
   FedBizOpps website announcing its intention to award a sole-source
   ATNAVICS production contract to Raytheon and informed other potential
   sources of their right to submit offers for consideration by the Army.
   Proposals were due October 3, 2005. No source other than Raytheon
   requested or received a copy of the RFP or submitted a proposal. The
   contemplated sole-source contract for Raytheon was a follow-on contract to
   a competitively awarded ATNAVICS contract, awarded to Raytheon in 1995.

   The ATNAVICS system, as described in the sole-source RFP, is essentially a
   mobile air traffic navigation system, which is configured on two High
   Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) (referred to by the parties
   as HUMVEEs) and can be transported on a single C-130 or larger aircraft.
   Specifically, the ATNAVICS "sensor subsystem,"[1] which includes all
   essential radar components, is mounted on an "expanded capacity variant
   (ECV)" HUMVEE and the ATNAVICS "operations shelter," a structure from
   which personnel operate the ATNAVICS system, is carried and deployed by
   the "heavy variant (HV)" HUMVEE. Each HUMVEE also pulls a trailer that
   carries a power generator.

   In its protest, ITT does not challenge the Army's conclusion that Raytheon
   was the only firm capable of meeting the ATNAVICS requirements, as those
   requirements were identified in the sole-source RFP. Moreover, ITT
   concedes that its own mobile air traffic control sensor subsystem cannot
   be mounted on a single HUMVEE, and that its system cannot be transported
   on a single C-130 aircraft. Protest 1 at 6. Rather, ITT's protest
   allegations flow from its assertion that the deployment requirements for
   the ATNAVICS system have materially changed from those stated in the RFP,
   thereby undermining the basis for the Army's sole-source award
   determination. In this regard, ITT contends that the Army's initiative to
   "up-armor" its HUMVEEs imposes severe weight restrictions on the HUMVEEs
   utilized to move the ATNAVICS, which have effectively eliminated the
   above-noted single HUMVEE and single C-130 requirements. With these
   requirements eliminated, ITT asserts that it is capable of meeting the
   Army's mobile air traffic control system requirements, thereby
   fundamentally altering the competitive landscape for the Army's required
   system and rendering the Army's sole-source decision unreasonable.

   The Army maintains that ITT's challenge is premature. We agree. In arguing
   that the mobile air traffic control system requirements have changed, ITT
   points to numerous documents reflecting the Army's existing policy, as
   mandated by the Department of Defense, to swiftly outfit its tactical
   wheeled vehicles, such as the HUMVEE, with sufficient armor to protect the
   crews participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring
   Freedom, as well as for the future. These records clearly reflect the
   challenges presented by the up-armoring initiative for many systems
   utilized in conjunction with tactical wheeled vehicles, including the
   ATNAVICS system. These problems in many instances stem from the increased
   weight associated with adding armor to the vehicles, which move these
   systems. Regarding the ATNAVICS system, the Army has conceded that in its
   existing configuration it is overweight on a fully armored HUMVEE.
   Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement, Dec. 28, 2006, at 13. The Army,
   however, represents that it has not finalized a course of action to
   resolve the up-armoring issue in the context of the ATNAVICS system and
   therefore has yet to proceed with any changes to the ATNAVICS system to
   meet the contemplated up-armoring requirements. Id. Moreover, there have
   been no modifications to Raytheon's contract to implement any changed
   requirements and the agency indicates that ATNAVICS could ultimately be
   exempted from the up-armoring initiative altogether. Agency Report, Tab
   V1, Department of the Army Memorandum, Subject: Courses of Action for
   Fielding Systems on Up-Armored Tactical Wheeled Vehicles, Jan. 12, 2006,
   at 5. Until the agency has finalized its course of action with respect to
   integrating the ATNAVICS system in the context of its up-armoring
   initiative, ITT's protest of likely changes resulting from such
   integration, changes which it views as allowing it to compete for this
   requirement, are premature and speculative in nature and therefore not for
   review by our Office at this time. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co.,
   B-298626, Nov. 21, 2006, 2006 CPD    para. 177 at __.

   The protest is dismissed.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The sensor subsystem components include: the Precision Approach Radar,
   the Airport Surveillance Radar, and the Secondary Surveillance Radar.