TITLE: B-299675.2; B-299675.3; B-299675.4, General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., May 30, 2008
BNUMBER: B-299675.2; B-299675.3; B-299675.4
DATE: May 30, 2008
***********************************************************************************
B-299675.2; B-299675.3; B-299675.4, General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., May 30, 2008

   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: General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc.

   File: B-299675.2; B-299675.3; B-299675.4

   Date: May 30, 2008

   Raymond Fioravanti, Esq., General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc.; David A.
   Churchill, Esq., Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq., and Mushtaq Z. Gunja, Esq., Jenner
   & Block LLP, for the protester.
   Anne B. Perry, Esq., John W. Chierichella, Esq., and Jesse J. Williams,
   Esq., Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, for Northrop Grumman Space
   & Mission Systems Corp., an intevenor.

   Jeffrey I. Kessler, Esq., and Glenda J. Collins, Esq., Department of the
   Army, for the agency.
   Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of General Counsel,
   GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest that agency's evaluation of proposals, and the resulting source
   selection decision, were unreasonable is denied where the record shows
   that the agency's evaluation assessments were reasonable and consistent
   with the solicitation's evaluation factors, and where the record shows
   that the resulting selection decision clearly documents the selection
   official's understanding of the evaluation results and reasonably assesses
   the evaluated strengths and weaknesses of the respective proposals in the
   tradeoff decision.

   DECISION

   General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to
   Northrop Grumman Mission Systems, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP)
   No. W31P4Q-07-R-0052, issued by the United States Army Aviation and
   Missile Command for the Standardized Integrated Command Post System Family
   of Trailer Mounted Support Systems (TMSS or "trailer system") in support
   of the United States Army Tactical Operations Centers. General Dynamics
   essentially objects to the evaluation of proposals and challenges the
   agency's best value determination.

   BACKGROUND

   The RFP, issued on an unrestricted basis on March 16, 2007, contemplates
   the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite quantity fixed-priced
   contract for medium and large trailer systems for a base period and four
   additional 1-year ordering periods. The TMSS is described as a turnkey
   system and is being obtained as a non-developmental
   item/commercial-off-the-shelf solution comprised of a
   controlled-environment tent, an environmental control unit (ECU), an
   auxiliary power unit for the ECU (i.e., a generator), and a trailer. RFP,
   attach. 2, sect. 1.2. The TMSS provides for workspace, power distribution,
   lighting, heating and cooling, tables, lightweight/integrated flooring,
   and a common grounding system for the staffs of all battlefield functional
   areas. Id.

   The RFP provided that the award would be made based on the proposal
   determined to be most advantageous to the government with appropriate
   consideration given to the following evaluation factors: technical,[1]
   price and performance risk.[2] RFP sect. M.1. The RFP stated that
   technical was significantly more important than price which was slightly
   more important than performance risk. RFP sect. M.2.b. The RFP also
   provided that all non-price evaluation factors combined were significantly
   more important than price. Id.

   With respect to the technical evaluation factor, the RFP stated that the
   government would evaluate the overall merit and risk presented by the
   technical proposals. In this regard, the RFP anticipated an assessment of
   the strengths and weaknesses of the offerors' technical approach, as well
   as their ability to deliver systems and supporting products that meet the
   RFP requirements. RFP sect. M.2.c. The RFP identified the following
   subfactors under the technical evaluation factor: product technical
   performance, safety, logistics and production capability, quality
   assurance program and failure reporting analysis, and corrective action
   system.[3]

   Under the product technical performance subfactor, the RFP identified the
   following elements to be evaluated in descending order of importance: ECU,
   generator, trailer and tent. RFP sect. M.2.c.1. The purpose of evaluating
   these elements was to determine the degree to which the offered trailer
   system conformed with the individual performance specifications in the
   RFP. Id. Offerors were warned that their products would be required to
   meet all of the requirements that were identified as critical performance
   parameters.

   Additionally, with respect to the product technical performance subfactor,
   the RFP stated:

     The offeror shall fully describe the test and evaluation plan, methods,
     procedures and test/event dates used to test and verify the proposed
     TMSS products performance, including details of the test and evaluation
     approach and methodology used to verify and qualify the design
     performance and capability of their product.

     (a) The offeror shall prepare a Cross Reference Verification Matrix
     (CRVM), using DI-MISC-81283 as a guide that identifies the test,
     analysis, inspection or other method used to verify conformance of the
     offered products performance against the requirements of MIS-PRF-56014.
     For methods used other than that detailed in Section 4 of the
     performance specification, the offeror shall provide justification for
     Government acceptance. All data referenced within the CRVM shall be
     provided with the proposal. The offeror shall provide verifiable data
     from a recognized independent test center. One such test center is
     Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD 21005, . . . Actual test data in the form
     of a report is preferred.

     (b) The offeror shall provide detailed definition(s) of product
     configuration used during verification testing as provided in the CRVM.
     Rationale for acceptance of test data from other than the offerors
     proposed production configuration shall be provided.

   RFP sect. L-4.b.1.

   The agency received proposals from General Dynamics and Northrop by the
   closing date. The source selection evaluation board (SSEB) conducted an
   initial evaluation and reached the following overall conclusions:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                       |    General Dynamics    |       Northrop        |
   |-----------------------+------------------------+-----------------------|
   |Technical/Proposal Risk|Unsatisfactory/High Risk|  Unsatisfactory/High  |
   |                       |                        |         Risk          |
   |-----------------------+------------------------+-----------------------|
   |   Performance Risk    |        Low Risk        |       Low Risk        |
   |-----------------------+------------------------+-----------------------|
   |    Proposed Price     |     $217.5 million     |    $277.2 million     |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, Tab K, SSA Decision, at 2. Despite the low technical ratings shown
   above, the SSA concluded that both offerors had the potential for becoming
   eligible for award and included both of their proposals in the competitive
   range.

   At this point, the agency provided written discussion questions to both
   offerors, and both were provided a letter identifying the deficiencies and
   weaknesses in their proposals. Additionally, a teleconference was held
   with both offerors to ensure that each understood the discussion
   questions. At the conclusion of these discussions, the two offerors were
   asked to provide revised proposals. The proposals were again evaluated and
   again both were assessed as unsatisfactory/high risk under the technical
   evaluation factor.

   As a result, the agency decided to hold a second round of discussions with
   both offerors. On October 11, letters were sent identifying the remaining
   deficiencies, weaknesses and risks in each proposal. In addition, oral
   discussions were held with both offerors on October 17. During this round
   of discussions, Northrop was notified of 4 remaining deficiencies and 2
   weaknesses in its proposal; General Dynamics was notified of 12 remaining
   deficiencies and 7 weaknesses. Both offerors were advised that unless
   these deficiencies were corrected their proposals would be ineligible for
   award.

   By October 24, both offerors again submitted revised proposals. At the
   conclusion of this final evaluation, the General Dynamics proposal
   continued to receive a rating "unsatisfactory/high risk" because the
   proposal was assessed by the agency as having three remaining
   deficiencies. The final evaluation results are set forth below:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                        |    General Dynamics     |      Northrop       |
   |------------------------+-------------------------+---------------------|
   |Technical/Proposal Risk |Unsatisfactory/High Risk |Satisfactory/Low Risk|
   |------------------------+-------------------------+---------------------|
   |    Performance Risk    |        Low Risk         |      Low Risk       |
   |------------------------+-------------------------+---------------------|
   |     Proposed Price     |     $215.6 million      |   $277.2 million    |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, Tab K, SSA Decision, at 3.

   The final evaluation results were presented to the SSA, who compared the
   strengths, weaknesses and risks of each offeror's proposal, the price
   evaluation, and the evaluation criteria. Despite the earlier warning that
   offerors would not be eligible for award if deficiencies remained in their
   proposal, or if the proposals failed to meet all of the RFP-identified
   critical performance parameters, the SSA included General Dynamics in the
   tradeoff decision. Id. at 21.

   In the tradeoff decision, the SSA noted that the General Dynamics proposal
   had not established the company's compliance with three critical
   performance parameters. Specifically, General Dynamics' overall technical
   rating was viewed as unsatisfactory due to remaining deficiencies assessed
   under the trailer element of the product technical performance evaluation
   sub-factor. Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 3. These deficiencies
   were that the proposal did not provide adequate verification that: the
   medium trailer system could meet the total gross weight requirement; or
   that either the medium or the large trailer system could pass the 3,000
   mile mission profile test. Id. The SSA noted, however, that the General
   Dynamics proposal received a low performance risk rating, and provided the
   lowest price.

   In contrast, the SSA noted that the Northrop proposal adequately verified
   that its trailer system met all of the RFP-identified critical performance
   parameters, and that its proposal was rated satisfactory with respect to
   the other technical requirements. The SSA also noted that Northrop
   received a low risk rating for past performance, but noted its higher
   price. Based on the results of this comparison, the SSA concluded that
   Northrop's proposal offered the best value to the government, and awarded
   the contract to Northrop on February 12. After General Dynamics received
   its debriefing, it filed a protest with our Office on February 25, which
   it supplemented on March 3 and April 7.

   DISCUSSION

   General Dynamics essentially argues that the agency failed to evaluate
   offerors on a consistent and equitable basis. The protester contends that
   the agency arbitrarily disqualified its proposal, improperly relied upon
   an unannounced requirement for a system-level test, improperly scored its
   proposal, and failed to perform a proper best value determination.

   Our Office reviews challenges to an agency's evaluation of proposals only
   to determine whether the agency acted reasonably and in accord with the
   solicitation's evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and
   regulations. Marine Animal Prods. Int'l, Inc., B-247150.2, July 13, 1992,
   92-2 CPD para. 16 at 5. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's
   judgment is not sufficient to establish than an agency acted unreasonably.
   Entz Aerodyne, Inc., B-293531, Mar. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD
   para. 70 at 3.

   Technical Evaluation

   As explained above, under the most important technical evaluation
   subfactor, product technical performance, the RFP provided that the agency
   would evaluate the verification data provided in the proposals to
   determine whether the offered product met the requirements of the
   individual performance specification. In addition, to be eligible for
   award, the trailer system was required to meet all of the specifications
   identified as critical performance parameters in the RFP.

   The agency found that with respect to three critical requirements, the
   protester provided incomplete test data and/or analysis to adequately
   support a conclusion that its medium and large trailer systems satisfied
   these requirements. The overall rating of General Dynamics' proposed
   trailer system under each of the technical elements (under the product
   technical performance evaluation subfactor) was as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |       ELEMENT        |          RATING           |        RISK         |
   |----------------------+---------------------------+---------------------|
   |         ECU          |         Marginal          |      Moderate       |
   |----------------------+---------------------------+---------------------|
   |      Generator       |       Satisfactory        |      Moderate       |
   |----------------------+---------------------------+---------------------|
   |       Trailer        |      Unsatisfactory       |        High         |
   |----------------------+---------------------------+---------------------|
   |         Tent         |           Good            |         Low         |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, Tab K, SSA Decision, at 8.

   Since offerors were required to establish compliance with all critical
   performance parameters through test data analysis to be eligible for
   award, and since the protester could have been reasonably excluded from
   award for any of the three areas in which it failed to establish its
   compliance, we will not discuss in detail the protester's challenges to
   all three of these areas. Although we have reviewed all of the protester's
   challenges--and conclude that the agency evaluation was reasonable in all
   three instances--we set forth below our review of the protester's
   contention that the agency acted improperly in concluding that the
   proposal did not establish that General Dynamics' medium trailer system
   would comply with the stated weight requirements.

   The RFP required that the total gross weight of the medium trailer system
   could not exceed 4,200 pounds with all equipment, including the ECU,
   generator, trailer and tent. RFP para. 3.2.6.8.1.1. The agency rated the
   General Dynamics proposal as unsatisfactory with high risk under this
   element because the evaluators concluded that the proposal failed to
   provide sufficient data to verify that the medium trailer system met the
   weight requirement, in part because the proposal did not include evidence
   that the proposed system was ever actually tested or weighed.

   Specifically, the agency found that the configuration of the medium
   trailer system tested was different from the system being proposed, and
   that the proposal's so-called "similarity analysis" (as opposed to actual
   testing) was insufficient to establish that the system would comply with
   the total gross weight requirement. In support of its conclusion, the
   agency explained that (1) the tent weight identified in the proposal
   estimate had changed several times with no explanation; (2) the trailer
   configuration had changed, and the changes did not match the weight
   changes identified; and (3) there was no explanation of how additions to
   the ECU portion of the unit would affect its weight. AR, Tab F6a,
   Consensus Report, at 14. In addition, the agency expressed concerns about
   the protester's use of estimated weights for its system, instead of actual
   weights, in part because the estimated weight of the configuration was
   within 8 pounds of the maximum weight allowed, leaving little room for
   error. CO Statement at 13.

   The protester answers these conclusions by arguing that it met every
   critical performance parameter, it took no exceptions to any requirements,
   and the test data and information it provided permitted verification of
   its compliance with the requirements under methods specifically identified
   in the RFP. The protester also contends that the agency misread its
   proposal and discussion responses. Primarily, the protester argues that it
   was unreasonable to conclude that it violated the weight requirement when
   the combined weight of the component parts in its proposal totals 4,192
   pounds, which is within the 4,200 pound weight limit.

   To support its contentions the protester argues that: (1) the agency
   incorrectly concluded that the stated weight of the tent did not include
   all of its components, including hardware and accessories; (2) the agency
   incorrectly concluded that the estimated weight for the system did not
   include all ECU components; (3) the weight changes in the different
   versions of its proposal were due to its correction of earlier errors; and
   (4) it was unreasonable for the agency to conclude that the proposal
   insufficiently documented the system's compliance with the weight
   limitation. Finally, the protester argues that the agency improperly
   applied an unannounced requirement for a system-level test to establish
   that the system met the weight limitations.

   Based on our review of the record, we think this protest, essentially, is
   about a disagreement with the agency's judgment as to the adequacy of the
   protester's similarity analysis in determining whether the proposed
   trailer systems would satisfy critical requirements. Despite the
   protester's contention that the agency was improperly requiring only one
   type of testing--i.e., system level testing--to establish compliance with
   requirements , the record shows that General Dynamics used, and the agency
   accepted, several testing approaches for verifying compliance with most of
   the critical requirements at issue in this procurement. With respect to
   the three final deficiencies (including the weight requirement), however,
   the agency concluded that General Dynamics simply did not provide
   sufficient justification to support a finding that it was offering to
   comply with the requirements.

   Although the protester, through its protest submissions, attempts to
   explain how it demonstrated its compliance with the weight requirement,
   the record shows that during two rounds of discussions, the protester was
   repeatedly and specifically advised of the agency's concerns with the
   medium trailer system configuration. The record also shows that the
   protester was told in great detail that the similarity analysis/rationale
   it was using was insufficient to verify that the proposed medium trailer
   system would comply with the weight requirement. AR, Tab F-3. While the
   protester was able to satisfy the agency with respect to most of the
   issues concerning its medium trailer system, it was unable to provide a
   suitable explanation for why the agency should accept data based on a
   different trailer manufacturer, a different size and manufacturer of the
   ECU, and a different size and manufacturer of the generator.

   In sum, we find that the agency reasonably concluded that the General
   Dynamics' proposal failed to provide sufficient support for the assertion
   that its medium trailer system satisfied the critical weight requirement.
   It is the responsibility of offerors to include sufficiently detailed
   information in their proposals to establish that the item offered will
   meet material solicitation requirements--blanket statements of compliance
   cannot fulfill this obligation. Outdoor Venture Corp., B-288894.2, Dec.
   19, 2001, 2002 CPD para. 13 at 3.

   With respect to the protester's assertion that the agency was unreasonable
   in its review of the analysis upon which General Dynamics relied to
   establish its compliance with these requirements, we disagree. The RFP
   required offerors to provide a rationale for the use of any similarity
   analysis, and the protester was made aware of the agency's concerns
   throughout this procurement. Specifically, the agency expressly advised
   the protester during discussions that the information provided in the
   proposal was not sufficient to verify compliance with the RFP's
   requirements.[4] As the agency maintains, the three deficiencies remaining
   in the protester's proposal were not based on the fact that testing was
   not accomplished on the exact configuration being offered, but because of
   the incomplete and inconclusive justification and rationale provided by
   the protester to substantiate its claim of compliance.[5] CO Statement at
   8.

   With respect to the contention that it was unreasonable for the agency to
   assess the proposal as unsatisfactory with high risk under the entire
   technical evaluation factor (and under the product technical performance
   subfactor) because of its rating of unsatisfactory with high risk under
   the trailer element, we again disagree. As explained above, the RFP here
   required offerors to satisfy all critical requirements of the system
   specifications to be eligible for award. RFP para. M.2.c.1. In addition,
   offerors were advised during discussions that if these deficiencies
   remained, their proposals would not be eligible for award. Given that the
   protester's final proposal was evaluated as not satisfying three of these
   critical requirements, we see nothing unreasonable about reflecting this
   issue in the overall subfactor and factor ratings.

   Disparate Treatment of Offerors

   In its supplemental protest, the protester argues that the source
   selection decision was improper because the SSA was misled by the
   evaluators as to the merits of the proposals. Specifically, the protester
   contends that the evaluation documents show that despite the SSEB's
   representation that Northrop complied with all specifications, Northrop
   also failed, in the protester's view, to meet three requirements.[6] Among
   other things, the protester contends that the generators identified for
   Northrop's large and medium trailer systems did not comply with the
   "radiated susceptibility" requirement because no high altitude testing had
   been performed, and because Northrop's generators did not meet a
   specification requirement for parallel operation.

   With respect to the high altitude test data concerning radiated
   susceptibility, the agency responds that Northrop provided test data that
   verified its compliance with this requirement in answer to discussion
   questions. CO Supp. Statement at 6. With respect to the requirement for
   parallel operation of the generators, the agency explains that this was
   not identified as a critical requirement in the RFP, and was instead, a
   desirable, but not required, feature. Id. at 4.

   While the protester concedes that parallel operation of generators was not
   a critical requirement (see Protester's Supp. Comments, May 5, 2008, at 7)
   it continues to argue that the SSA was improperly told that Northrop
   satisfied all performance specifications, and that the SSA relied on this
   erroneous information in making the selection decision. In addition, and
   notwithstanding the agency's statements to the contrary, the protester
   also continues to question whether Northrop satisfied the radiated
   susceptibility requirement. In essence, the protester maintains that the
   agency consistently applied a more lenient evaluation standard to
   Northrop's proposal than was applied to General Dynamic's proposal by
   having confidence in all of Northrop's data and analysis.

   We have reviewed these contentions, and in our view, the record here does
   not support these arguments. Northrop's deficiencies and weaknesses were
   resolved through the submission of additional test data during
   discussions. The record shows that the agency performed a detailed
   evaluation of every element of both proposals and provided both offerors
   multiple opportunities to submit acceptable proposals that satisfied all
   requirements. As with Northrop's proposal, the record also shows that
   large amounts of the protester's test data and similarity analysis were
   accepted to demonstrate compliance with the specifications, with the
   exception of the three remaining deficiencies. With respect to those, we
   think the agency reasonably concluded that the protester simply failed to
   demonstrate compliance with the critical requirements of this
   solicitation, even after being advised in detail and with specificity of
   the agency's concerns.[7]

   Best Value Determination

   Finally, the protester argues that the best value decision here was
   flawed.[8] As before, and again, we disagree.

   As discussed above, we have concluded that the agency's evaluation was
   reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. The SSA selected
   Northrop for award after reviewing the SSB report, the Performance Risk
   Assessment Report and the Price Analysis Report. The SSA specifically
   recognized the price difference between the proposals, noted that the
   protester failed to meet performance and capability standards in the
   specification, and observed that the General Dynamics proposal could not
   meet the requirements of the RFP without major changes. The SSA concluded
   that the unanswered questions about the General Dynamics system could lead
   to serious and life-threatening failures to communicate on the
   battlefield. As a result, the SSA decided that award to Northrop at a
   higher price was in the government's best interest. AR, attach. K, at 26.
   We have no basis to question that determination.

   Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the agency's
   evaluation, and the source selection decision that resulted, were
   reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] Under the technical factor, the agency used the following ratings:
   excellent, good, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory. Technical
   proposal risk was assessed as: high risk, moderate risk, or low risk.
   Agency Report (AR), Tab K, Source Selection Authority (SSA) Decision, at
   4.

   [2] Under the performance risk factor, offers were assessed as: high
   performance risk, moderate performance risk, low performance risk, or
   neutral performance risk. Id. at 4-5.

   [3] Among these subfactors, the RFP explained that product technical
   performance was somewhat more important than safety; safety was slightly
   more important than logistics; and logistics was somewhat more important
   than production capability. The production capability, quality assurance
   program and failure reporting analysis, and corrective action system
   subfactors were of equal importance. RFP sect. M.2.c.

   [4] In its protest, General Dynamics argues that the RFP was ambiguous as
   to what level of verification was required. We disagree. The RFP
   identified the information that would be acceptable, and explained that if
   an offeror intended to rely on test data from a similar product, the
   offeror would have to provide a sufficient rationale for acceptance of
   this data. RFP sect. L.b.1.

   [5] As indicated above, we have also reviewed in detail the agency's
   concerns with respect to the protester's failure to establish that its
   medium and large trailer systems complied with the 3,000 mile mission
   capability profile test. The agency generally questioned the protester's
   similarity analysis because it was based on tests performed on a system
   that had a different trailer manufacturer, a different size and
   manufacturer for the ECU component, and a different size and manufacturer
   for the generator component than the system being proposed. Based on these
   discrepancies, we cannot say it was unreasonable for the agency to
   question whether the protester provided a sufficient rationale to accept
   the proposal's similarity analysis.

   [6] Although the supplemental protest alleges that Northrop's proposal
   failed to meet several performance specifications, the record shows that
   one of the alleged instances of noncompliance was simply not accurate.
   According to the protester, one agency evaluator noted a weakness with
   respect to the ECU component of Northrop's large trailer system. The
   weakness was that the component was not tested to determine if it met the
   protective covers requirement to "remain securely fastened when exposed to
   pulsing wind during [External Air Transport]." RFP para. 3.2.1.7.1.
   However, this requirement only applies to the medium trailer system not
   the large system. Northrop's medium trailer system did undergo testing and
   the agency concluded that it met the protective covers requirement. CO
   Supplemental Statement at 6.

   [7] The protester also maintains that disparate treatment exists because
   the agency contacted the testing agency identified in Northrop's proposal
   to validate the proposal's test data, but did not contact the manufacturer
   of General Dynamic's ECU component to clear up issues with the protester's
   proposed ECU. However, the record shows that both offerors agreed to allow
   the agency to contact testing agencies to clarify test data. Moreover, the
   Army reports that it contacted the test agencies identified by both
   Northrop and General Dynamics to verify test data. CO Supplemental
   Statement at 12. The protester's argument that these facts constitute
   disparate treatment is utterly unconvincing.

   [8] Finally, we note that throughout this protest, General Dynamics argues
   that the SSA misunderstood the SSB evaluation, and failed to recognize
   that the evaluators never found that the protester's trailer system did
   not meet the solicitation requirements, but instead found that the
   protester failed to provide sufficient verification data to demonstrate
   its compliance. We have seen no evidence in our review of this record that
   the SSA did not understand or appreciate this distinction.

   We again note that under the RFP, the agency was under no obligation to
   conduct a tradeoff between the proposals since General Dynamics' proposal
   was unacceptable.