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.