• 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

Northrop Grumman Space and Missile Systems Corporation; Textron Marine & Land Systems Corporation, B-400837; B-400837.2; B-400837.3; B-400837.4; B-400837.5, February 17, 2009

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • February 17, 2009
  • RiskTechnical Evaluation

Link: GAO Opinion

Agency: Department of the Army

Disposition:  Protests denied.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

GAO Digest:

  1. Protest of agency evaluation of system maturity of offerors’ proposed joint light tactical vehicle configurations is denied; agency reasonably determined that awardees had previously constructed and tested demonstrators or prototypes that were sufficiently representative of proposed configurations such that risk awardees would be unable to meet demanding performance schedule was materially reduced.
  2. Agency reasonably determined that incorporated joint venture awardee satisfied requirement for Cost Accounting Standards disclosure statement where proposal included disclosure statements originally submitted by, and concerning cost accounting systems of, joint venture members/subcontractors; proposal indicated that all costs to be billed under contract would be incurred and accounted for by joint venture members/subcontractors, with no allowance for any costs to be incurred and accounted for at joint venture level; and proposal delineated overall share in cost of performance and specific roles to be filled by each joint venture member/subcontractor.

General Counsel P.C. Highlight:

NG’s and Textron’s protests focus in significant measure on the evaluation under the integrated system maturity (ISM) subfactor. The ISM subfactor included four equally-weighted elements–the JLTV-A, JLTV-B, and JLTV-C configurations, and program management. The RFP provided that for each of the three configuration elements, the government would assess the probability/risk that the configuration would achieve program requirements within 27 months based on four considerations: system design maturity, system reliability maturity, system maintainability maturity, and system command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (C4I) maturity. NG and Textron assert that BAE and GTV improperly received credit in the ISM maturity evaluation for having built a demonstrator, since the agency did not consider whether the demonstrators were comparable to the offerors’ proposed JLTV approaches.

As an initial matter, GAO agrees with the agency that nothing in the solicitation required a showing that an offeror’s demonstrator was identical to its ultimate proposed design in order to receive some credit in the maturity evaluation for the demonstrator. In this regard, the RFP provided only that “[t]he primary purpose of the substantiating data submitted for the integrated system maturity subfactor is to document and verify the achievement and credibility of the offeror’s proposed maturity level,” with the maturity self-assessment in turn to “be based upon the proposal configurations characterized in the offeror’s System Description.” Agency witnesses at the hearing GAO conducted in this matter testified that the agency undertook the ISM maturity evaluation with the view that the demonstrator “doesn’t necessarily have to be the 100 percent solution that you are going to deliver to the Army, but it has to be representative.” GAO finds that the agency’s focus on whether a demonstrator was representative of, rather than identical to, an offeror’s ultimate proposed design, and on whether it appeared that the offeror had refined its design based on lessons learned from the demonstrator, was both consistent with the terms of the solicitation and reasonable.

NG asserts that AMC improperly assigned proposals evaluation credit for demonstrating achievement of all or part of a higher maturity level, when all lower maturity levels had not been achieved. The protester notes, in this regard, that attachment 24 provided, with respect to the system design maturity levels, that “[t]he below levels are cumulative; any level achieved must include achievement of all lower levels (except for Level 3 . . . ),” and with respect to the maintainability, reliability and C4I maturity levels, that “[t]he below levels are cumulative; any level achieved must include achievement of all lower levels.”

The RFP and discussions language cited by the agency appears to support its view that offerors were on notice that all maturity characteristics would be considered, regardless of the level achieved. In any case, however, GAO need not resolve this dispute, since the record indicates that NG’s proposal was based on the agency’s interpretation of the RFP. Specifically, in the maturity self-assessment in its FPR, NG claimed credit for having partially completed system design maturity level 5, even though its own self-assessment indicated that it had only partially completed maturity level 4. Having submitted a proposal on the understanding that partial credit was available for a maturity level notwithstanding the failure to complete lower maturity levels, NG cannot now assert that this approach was inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. The integrity of the protest process does not permit a protester to espouse one interpretation or position during the procurement, and then argue during a protest that the interpretation or position is unreasonable or otherwise improper.

NG and Textron assert that the risk with respect to the evaluated performance of the offerors’ proposed designs as reported to the SSA and SSAC was misleading. In this regard, the RFP generally provided that the evaluation would take into account “the relative strengths/weaknesses and risks of each proposal.” The RFP further generally provided for consideration of proposal risk, stating as follows: “Proposal Risk is assessed by the SSEB [Source Selection Evaluation Board] and is integrated into the assessment of the Technical, Logistics Commonality, and Cost Factors and the Small Business Participation subfactor.” Regarding the performance subfactor of the technical evaluation factor, under which the transportability, mobility, force protection, and payload characteristics of the proposed JLTV configurations were to be evaluated, the solicitation provided that: a. where the PD [Product Description] requirements in Attachment 26 identifies objectives, the Government will assess the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed performance levels satisfy the PD objective performance, and b. the proposal risk probability that, for the PD requirements in Attachment 26, the Offeror will achieve (1) PD threshold performance levels, and (2) any offeror proposed performance above PD threshold levels up to objective performance levels.

The protesters assert that several of the risk ratings in the evaluation findings regarding mobility as set forth in the briefing slides presented to the SSA and SSAC were misleading. In this regard, the briefing slides included 12 evaluation categories based on various PD requirements (e.g., forward speed, acceleration dash speed, speed on grade, etc.) with respect to mobility, 1 of the 4 elements of the performance subfactor of the technical evaluation factor, resulting in a total of 36 ratings (12 categories x 3 JLTV configurations). As noted by the protesters, the agency assigned the risk rating associated with each category/JLTV rating based on the risk that the configuration would achieve the proposed performance, rather than the risk that the configuration would achieve either the threshold or objective performance levels, with the result that in several instances the risk ratings appear anomalous.

However, while the protesters are correct that basing the risk rating in the briefing slides on the difference between the proposed and evaluated speeds could, in the absence of further information, potentially mislead the SSA as to the relative speeds of the proposed JLTVs, it is clear that the briefing slides in fact reasonably set forth the evaluated relative performance of the proposed JLTV configurations for consideration by the SSA and SSAC. Again, the slides not only included a risk rating based on the likelihood that each JLTV configuration would meet the proposed level of performance, an evaluation approach provided for under the solicitation, but also included both the evaluated level of performance of each JLTV configuration and the associated strengths and weaknesses. Thus, it was apparent from the briefing slides that NG’s proposed JLTV-A configuration was evaluated as likely to achieve a higher forward speed ([REDACTED] mph) than BAE’s ([REDACTED] mph). GAO concludes that the evaluation record was sufficient to put the SSA and SSAC on notice of the relative merits (including regarding mobility) of the proposed designs.

The protesters assert that the overall evaluation ratings were mechanical in that the adjectival and risk ratings were inextricably and improperly linked. In this regard, the protesters note that the agency’s source selection plan defines five adjectival evaluation ratings for the ISM and performance subfactors of the technical evaluation factor, and lists a risk rating for each adjectival rating as follows: excellent/very low risk, good/low risk, adequate/moderate risk, marginal/high risk, and poor/very high risk. As noted by the protesters, in each case, the overall adjectival rating and risk ratings assigned an offeror’s proposal for the 4 ISM subfactor elements (JLTV-A, JLTV-B, JLTV-C and program management) and 4 performance subfactor elements (transportability, mobility, force protection and payload) correlated to the above adjectival/risk rating pairings. However, while the protesters assert that the above facts demonstrate that the agency’s adjectival and risk evaluation ratings were mechanically, and therefore improperly, linked, they have made no showing that the overall ratings at the element level did not in fact reasonably reflect the relative strengths and weaknesses of the offerors’ proposals such that the linking resulted in competitive prejudice.

The protesters assert that GTV’s proposal was unacceptable for failure to comply with the solicitation’s cost accounting standards (CAS) and small business participation requirements. GAO states that section 422 of title 42 of the United States Code directs the CAS Board to promulgate regulations, which shall be incorporated into the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and shall “require contractors and subcontractors as a condition of contracting with the United States to–(A) disclose in writing their cost accounting practices, including methods of distinguishing direct costs from indirect costs and the basis used for allocating indirect costs.” In this regard, the solicitation incorporated FAR clause 52.230-1, CAS Notices and Certifications, which provides as follows: Any offeror submitting a proposal which, if accepted, will result in a contract subject to the requirements of 48 CFR Chapter 99 must, as a condition of contracting, submit a Disclosure Statement as required by 48 CFR 9903.202. When required, the Disclosure Statement must be submitted as a part of the offeror’s proposal under this solicitation unless the offeror has already submitted a Disclosure Statement disclosing the practices used in connection with the pricing of this proposal.

In turn, 48 C.F.R. sect. 9903.202-1(b)(1) provides that “[a]ny business unit that is selected to receive a CAS-covered contract or subcontract of $50 million or more shall submit a Disclosure Statement before award.” Here, the negotiated contract with GTV is a CAS-covered contract, and because the contract was in excess of $50 million, GTV “as a condition of contracting,” was required to submit a CAS disclosure statement.

GTV, a limited liability joint venture incorporated in the state of Delaware, is comprised of two large business joint venture members–AM General and General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS). GTV’s proposal indicated that 100% of the contract costs would be accounted for by subcontracts with the two joint venture members, apportioned between them equally. GTV indicated in its proposal that a CAS disclosure statement had previously been submitted, and specifically cited in this regard disclosure statements submitted by AM General and GDLS.

The protesters assert that, because the CAS disclosure statements GTV relied on to meet the solicitation requirements had been submitted by and concerned the cost accounting systems of GTV’s joint venture members–that is, its subcontractors for this contract–and did not address the cost accounting system of GTV itself, the prime contractor, GTV failed to meet the CAS disclosure requirement and thus was ineligible for award. This argument is unpersuasive. In order to assist in consideration of this matter, GAO requested an advisory opinion from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), which is responsible for performing contract audits for the Department of Defense (DOD), and for providing accounting and financial advisory services regarding contracts and subcontracts to all DOD components responsible for procurement and contract administration. In responding to this request, DCAA referred to the DCAA Contract Audit Manual, DCAAM sections 7640.1, 7-1810.2, which provides audit guidance.

Applying this guidance, DCAA advised that submission of a CAS disclosure statement by the GTV joint venture itself may not be required; since all of the joint venture’s costs were proposed to be incurred and accounted for by the two joint venture members (which had already submitted their respective CAS disclosure statements) it would not serve a useful purpose in the examination of the joint venture’s cost proposal or in ensuring the joint venture’s compliance with the CAS Board’s rules. GAO finds DCAA’s position persuasive. GTV’s proposal in fact incorporated CAS disclosure statements applicable to the contemplated contract effort. While these disclosure statements had originally been submitted by, and concerned the cost accounting systems of, GTV’s joint venture members/subcontractors, GTV’s proposal indicated that all costs to be billed under the contemplated contract would be incurred and accounted for by GTV’s joint venture members/subcontractors, with no allowance for any costs to be incurred and accounted for at the GTV level. Furthermore, GTV’s proposal delineated the overall share in the cost of performance and the specific roles to be filled by each joint venture member/subcontractor. In these circumstances, we think AMC could reasonably determine that GTV’s proposal satisfied the CAS disclosure requirements. The protests are denied.

Share

Related Posts

Matter of: Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.

May 27, 2021

Matter of: Transworld Systems, Inc; Account Control Technology, Inc.

February 21, 2018

Silverback7, Inc., B-408053.2; B-408053.3, August 26, 2013

October 9, 2013

Teknion LLC, B-407989; B-407989.2, May 8, 2013

October 9, 2013

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