• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-571-223-6845

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

ITT Electronic Systems, B-406405, B-406405.2, May 21, 2012

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • June 13, 2012
  • Interested PartyTechnical Evaluation

Link: GAO Decision

Protestor: ITT Electronic Systems

Agency: Department of the Army

Disposition: Protest Denied.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

GAO Digest:

  1. Unincorporated division of corporate parent that submitted proposal and filed protest is interested party to protest notwithstanding post-proposal-submission corporate restructuring whereby unincorporated division and assets committed to contract performance were transferred to new, stand-alone corporate entity.
  2. Protest that agency imposed unstated evaluation criterion for data reflecting testing under dynamic flight conditions is denied where solicitation for development of missile countermeasure system to be used aboard military aircraft adequately advised offerors that agency would consider performance of proposed systems under dynamic flight conditions.
  3. Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated [DELETED] cable component of protester’s proposed countermeasure system is denied where content of protester’s proposal reasonably supports agency’s evaluation criticisms.
  4. Protest that agency treated offerors unequally is denied where record reflects reasonable basis for distinction that agency identified between proposals.

General Counsel PC:

ITT Electronics System protested the awards to BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration, Inc. and Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation of contracts for development of a common infrared countermeasure system (CIRCM) to protect rotary-wing aircraft from missile threats. The solicitation provided for the award of two or more contracts to provide technical development services and produce prototype items. The agency established a competitive range consisting of four offerors, conducted discussions, and accepted FPRs. The SSA concluded that Northrop Grumman offered significant technical merit at the lowest proposed cost, and therefore represented one of the two best values to the government. The SSA then found that although ITT offered a lower proposed cost, BAE represented a better value to the government due to its significant technical superiority.

The GAO began by rejecting the agency’s argument that ITT was not an interested party due to a corporate reorganization that occurred after ITT submitted its proposal. Turning to the merits, the GAO first disagreed with ITT that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria, finding that the agency’s considerations of the timing capability of proposed CIRCM systems under dynamic flight conditions fell within the solicitation provisions. The GAO then rejected ITT’s objection to the assignment of an acceptable, rather than good, rating on the Pcm subfactor. The GAO then disagreed with ITT’s challenges to two aspects of its evaluation regarding ITT’s use of a [DELETED] cable to transmit laser energy from the CIRCM system’s laser to its pointer/tracker. The GAO found the agency’s assessment of weaknesses supported by the record, which noted risks regarding design maturity and environmental exposure. It also found reasonable the agency’s assignment of a weakness because ITT proposed specific power levels and wavelengths for its CIRCM system, but failed to indicate that it had tested the [DELETED] material at those power levels and wavelengths.

The GAO denied ITT’s argument that the agency had engaged in misleading discussions with respect to the testing of ITT’s [DELETED] cable at full power, noting that the argument was more properly characterized as a claim of unreasonable evaluation. It then rejected ITT’s allegations that the agency treated ITT, BAE, and Northrop Grumman unequally in evaluating the data rights that each firm offered to the government, pointing out that the record reflected a reasonable distinction between ITT’s proposal and the proposals of BAE and Northrop Grumman. Because ITT’s objections to the best value determination were based on its objections to the evaluations that the GAO had addressed earlier in its decision, the GAO declined to sustain the protest on that ground.

Offerors bear the burden of submitting adequately written proposals, and run the risk that their proposals will be evaluated unfavorably where they fail to do so. Where materials used in design must be capable of withstanding certain power levels, offerors must ensure that their proposals thoroughly detail the capabilities of their materials and indicate what level of testing has been successfully performed.

Share

Related Posts

It Ain’t a Party if it Ain’t Interested

March 28, 2022

Matter of Allosense, Inc.

February 7, 2022

Matter of: Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.

May 27, 2021

Matter of Bluewater Management Group, LLC

October 27, 2020

Comments are closed

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Need help with a bid protest?

Call us at: 703-556-0411 Or fill out this form:

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adequately Written Proposal
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • Ambiguity in Solicitation
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Bad Faith in Evaluation
  • Below-Cost Offer
  • Best Value
  • Beyond the Scope
  • Bias
  • Bid and Proposal Costs
  • Bid Bond
  • Bid Compliance
  • Bid Protest Decisions
  • Bid Protest Jurisdiction
  • Bid Protests
  • Bidding Best Practices
  • Blanket Purchase Agreement
  • Blanket Purchase Order
  • Blog Articles
  • Bona Fide Needs Rule
  • Brand Name or Equal
  • Broad Agency Announcement
  • Brooks Act
  • Bundling or Consolidation
  • Buy American Act
  • Cancellation of a Solicitation
  • Capability of Contractor
  • CCR Registration
  • Certificate of Competency (COC)
  • Certification Requirements
  • Changes Clause
  • Clarifications
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Clearly Meritorious Protest
  • Clerical Error
  • Commercial Item Acquisition
  • Competitive Range
  • Compliance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Construction Design-Build
  • Construction Services
  • Contract Administration
  • Contract Modifications
  • Contracting Preference
  • Contractor Responsibility
  • Corporate Capability
  • Corrective Action
  • Cost Accounting System
  • Cost Evaluation
  • Cost Realism
  • Cost Reimbursement Contract
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off
  • Customary Commercial Practice
  • CVE
  • DCAA Audit
  • Debriefing
  • Default Termination
  • Deficient Price Proposal
  • Delivery Order jurisdiction
  • Delivery Schedule
  • Designated Employee Agent
  • Disclosure of Price
  • Disclosure of Source Selection-Sensitive Information
  • Discussions
  • Disqualification
  • Documentation of Evaluation
  • Domestic Production Requirement
  • Education Center Articles
  • Electronic Filing
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Evaluations
  • Events
  • Executive Order Compliance
  • Experience of Contractor
  • Experience Requirement
  • Fair Market Price
  • FASA
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Filing Deadlines
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • GAO Bid Protest Review
  • GAO Jurisdiction
  • GAO Standard of Review
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • In-Sourcing
  • Incentive Fee
  • Inclement Weather Delay
  • Incomplete Proposal
  • Incorporation by Reference
  • Incumbent Capture
  • Incumbent Status
  • Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
  • Individual Environmental Report
  • Industrial Mobilization
  • Innovations
  • Interested Party
  • Invitation for Bid
  • Invited Contractor
  • Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
  • Joint Venture
  • Key Personnel
  • Labor Hours
  • Labor Rate Pricing
  • Late Proposals
  • Late Submissions
  • Level of Effort
  • Licensing Requirements
  • Limitation on Subcontracting
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Lost Proposal
  • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
  • Mail-Box Rule
  • Management Planning
  • Market Research
  • MAS Contracts
  • Material Misrepresentation
  • Material Solicitation Amendment
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • Meaningful Discussions
  • Micro-Purchase Threshold
  • Minimum Requirements
  • Misleading Discussions
  • Mistake
  • Mitigation Strategy
  • Multiple Awards
  • NAICS Code
  • National Security
  • Negotiation
  • News
  • Non-Procurement Instruments
  • Novations
  • Offeror Representations
  • OMB Circular A-76
  • Option Exercise
  • Oral Presentations
  • Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • Page Limitations
  • Past Performance
  • Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
  • Performance Based Standards
  • Permits and Responsibilities
  • Personal Conflicts of Interest
  • Post-Award Changes to the Contract
  • Post-Protest Re-Evaluations
  • Practicable Alternative
  • Pre-Award Protest
  • Pre-award vs. Post-award Requirements
  • Pre-Qualification of Offerors
  • Pre-Solicitation Notice
  • Prejudice
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Evaluation
  • Price of FSS Task Order Quote
  • Price Realism
  • Price Reasonableness
  • Price Reduction
  • Procurement Announcement
  • Procurement Integrity
  • Product Testing
  • Proposal Acceptance Period
  • Proposal Detail
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Proposal Extension
  • Proposal Standards
  • Proposals
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reevaluation
  • Reevaluation Standards
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Remedies
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • Scope of GAO Review
  • SDVOSB Set-Asides
  • Significant Issue Exception
  • Simplified Acquisition Procedures
  • Site Visit
  • Size Determination
  • Size Protest
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
  • Small Business Set-Asides
  • Small Business Subcontracting Goals
  • Sole-Source Award
  • Solicitation Amendment
  • Solicitation Requirements
  • Source Approval
  • Source Selection Authority
  • Source Selection Decision
  • Source Selection Plan
  • Sources Sought Notice
  • Staffing Plan
  • State and Local Requirements
  • Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Subcontract Protest
  • Subcontractor Experience
  • Suspension and Debarment
  • Taking Exception to RFP Requirements
  • Task Orders
  • Teaming Agreement
  • Technical Acceptability
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Unduly Restrictive Terms
  • Unequal Access to Information
  • Unequal Treatment of Offerors
  • Uniform Time Act of 1996
  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria
  • Unusual and Compelling Urgency
  • Use of Appropriated Funds
  • Veterans First
  • VIP Database
  • VOSB Set Asides
  • Wage Determination

Get Help


Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-571-223-6845
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2022 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-571-223-6845