B-249539 [Protest of Marine Corps Rejection of Bid for ... · made its own assessment of Adyin's proposal, ... For example, with regard to ... risk is identified. "Blind speeds, range

-~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~,, &ciLoqComptoler Gmeserul

4 as i Of he uniter by~46

In M Wa. Unoed MCI S

Decision

Matter of: Aydin Computer and Monitor Division, AydinCorporation

File: B-249539

Date: December 2, 1992

Frank M. Rapoport, Esq., Daniel I. Prywes, Esq., andCharles H. Carpenter, Esq,, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, andGary T. Boswell, for the protester.Carl L. Vacketta, Esq., Michael W. Clancy, Esq., and Mark A.Riordan, Esq., Pettit & Martin, for GE Ocean & Radar SystemsDivision, General Electric Company, an interested party.John B. Bennett, Esq., United States Marine Corps, for theagency.Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Paul I. Liebernian, Esq., Officeof the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparationof the decision.

DIGEST

1. .Agency properly rejected as technically unacceptable aproposal which did not evidence a full understanding of thetechnical requirements of the solicitation and failed todemonstrate a reasonable probability of performing thetechnical aspects of the required work.

2. Agency reasonably led protester to area of its proposalthat was rated "unacceptable," thereby conducting meaningfuldiscussions, where the agency sought responses to20 technical questions, several of which were relativelybroad, and the protester's responses to at least two ofthose questions specifically addressed that aspect of itsproposal that was rated "unacceptable," evidencing theprotester's recognition of the agency's area of concern.

DbCI 8oN

Aydin Computer and Monitor Division, Aydin Corporationprotests the Marine Corps Systems Commandts rejection ofAdyin's proposal and the award of a contract to GE Ocean &Radar Systems Division, General Electric Company, underrequest for proposals (FIP) No. M67854-92-R-1069. Thesolicitation sought modifications to the Marine Corps's

AN/TPS-59 radar system. Aydin challenges the agency'sdetermination that its proposal was technically unacceptableand maintains that the agency failed to conduct meaningfuldiscussions.

We deny the protest,

BACKGROUND

The RFP was issued on February 18, 1992, and contemplateddesign, development, fabrication, integration, installation,and testing of modification kits for the AN/TPS-59 radarsystem, The system is currently capable of detectingconventional fighter-size aircraft at distances up to300 miles; thie REP called for modifying the system to makeit capable of detecting tactical ballistic missiles andother targets as small as .1 square meter at distances up to400 miles, and to provide a data link output to the Homingall the Way Killer (HAWK) missile system via the JointTactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS) 1 Theagency contemplated extensive changes to the radar system interms of both hardware and software as a result of thisprocurement; the agency's overall objectives were detailedin a statement of work in excess of 60 pages and systemspecifications in excess of 100 pages.'I

Section L of the RFP, which provided offerors withinstructions for proposal preparation, advised offerors that"statements paraphrasing the specifications or parts thereofare inadequate," and indicated that technical proposals"must be sufficient to demonstrate how the offerorpropose[s] to comply with the applicable specifications,including a full explanation of the techniques, disciplinesand procedures to be utilized,"

'The'%hmodification for improved detection capability wasintended to assist in defending agaihst tactical ballisticmissile threats such as those posed by'the Scud missiledurinhg Operation Desert Storm. In addition to improveddetection capability, the RFP contemplated systemimprovements related to reliability and maintainability,including modifications to increase mean time betweenfailures from 1,000 to 2,000 hours, improvement of equipmentmean time repair from 40 minutes to 30 minutes, andenhancement of tactical mobility through repackagingelectronic components and eliminating one of two electronicsshelters in which the system is housed.

'In addition, the Marine Corps established a comprehensivetechnical library available to potential offerors whichincluded numerous volumes of technical manuals, drawings,and instructions related to the AN/TPS-59 radar system.

2 B-249539

Section M of the RFP provided that, in evaluating proposals,technical factors would be more important Khan cost orprice,' and listed the following technical evaluationfactors in descending order of importance; (1) demonstratedunderstanding of the AN/TPS-59 or equivalent radar system;(2) data processing; (3) signal processing; (4) interfacerequirements; (5) communications; (6) MK XII/IFF (MarkXII/identification friend or foe); (7) BIT/BITE (built intest/built in test equipment); and (8) shelterlayout/configuration. The agency's source selection planprovided that technical proposals would be scored using thefollowing method: 90-100 (excellent); 80-89 (good); 70-79(fair); 60-69 (poor); and 0-59 (unacceptable). Each ratinglevel was accompanied by a narrative description.

The agency's source selection plan established a contractreview board (CRB) "to review and evaluate proposals," andto make competitive range and award recommendations to thesource selection authority (SSA). A technical evaluationboard (TEE) was also established to assist the CRB in itsevaluation responsibilities; the source selection planprovided thcd- the TEB's findings and recommendations "shallnot be binding on the CRB (or the] SSA."

The RFP initially provided for submission of proposals byMay 1, 1992; at Aydin's request, the closing date wasextended to May 4. GE and Adyin each timely submittedproposals by the closing date.4 The cost stated in Aydin'sproposal was approximately $40 million; the cost stated inGE's proposal was approximately $145 million.

Thereafter, the TER performed an initial evaluation of thetechnical proposals. On May 15, the TER provided a reportof its evaluation, along with backup documentation, tothe CRB. The TEE identified a substantial number ofweaknesses throughout Aydin's proposal. Among other things,

'The REP contained both development and production aspects,and provided that the development portion of the contractwould be performed on a cost-plus-incentive-fee basis andthe production portion would be performed on a fixed-price-plus-incentive-fee basis.

4At a hearing conducted in connection with this protest,Aydin's witnesses stated that Aydin's proposal preparationeffort was beguni by Aydin Corporation (West), a sistercorporation which includes the Radar and Electronic WarfareDivision. However, the proposal effort was transferred toAydin Computer and Monitor Division in Pennsylvaniafollowing the federal government's suspension of AydinCorporation (West) on April 21. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at213, 355, 369.

3 B-249539

the report stated that Aydin's proposal contained "minimaldemonstration of AN/TPS-59 or equivalent radar knowledge,"adding that "in numerous areas of the proposal, (Aydin]simply restate(dJ the requirement contained in the RFPrather than demonstrating a capability and understanding."Nonetheless, the report stated that "both proposals werejudged technically acceptable."

The CR3 reviewed the May 35 TEB report and expressed concernregarding Aydin's reiteration of RFE requirements, butconcluded that Aydin's proposal should be included in thecompetitive range and recommended that discussions beconducted with both offerors; the SSA accepted the CRB'srecommendation on June 1. By letter dated June 2, theagency advised Aydin that its proposal was in thecompetitive range and requested responses to 6 cost/pricequestions and 20 technical questions. Aydin provided itsresponses on June 9.

Thereafter, the TEB conducted a second evaluation. Prior tothat evaluation, the CRB reminded the TEB 'that it shouldspecifically consider the RFP provision that proposals"paraphrasing the specifications or parts thtireof areinadequate." During the second evaluation, the TED gavegreater consideration to this RFP provision, rating Aydin'sproposal "unacceptable" in the area of signal processing,'and "poor" overall.' The TEB provided a summary of itssecond evaluation with supporting documentation to the CRBin a report dated June 25. Although the TEB found Aydin's

5Aydin's proposal received a score of 59 in the area ofsignal processing, the third most important evaluationfactor.

'The source selection plan's narrative description of aproposal rated in the "poor" range stated:

"proposal indicates a shallow or less than fullunderstanding of the problem. The technicalanalyses meet the requirements and are technicallycorrect, but the offeror fails to demonstrate areasonable probability of performing the desiredtask, or his approach is risky."

In addition to rating the proposal "poor" overall, the TEBrated Aydin's proposal "poor" in the following individualevaluation areas: demonstrated knowledge of AN/TPS-59 orequivalent radar; interface requirements; and BIT/BITE(built in test/built in test equipment)

4 B-249539

proposal "unacceptable" with regard to signal processing and"poor" overall, the report also stated "both proposals werejudged technically acceptable. "7

The CRB reviewed the proposals along with the TEB reportsand supporting documentation, applied the weighting factorspreviously designated for each evaluation category,' andmade its own assessment of Adyin's proposal, Based on thisassessment, the CRB concluded that Aydin's proposal wastechnically unacceptable and recommended that the SSAeliminate Aydin's proposal from the competitive range andaward the contract to GE. By memora:ldum dated July 14, theSSA accepted the CRB's recommendation, eliminating Aydin'sproposal from the competitive range; on July 16, thecontract was awarded to GE. This protest followed.

DISCUSSION

Aydin first protests that the agency unreasonably determinedthat its proposal was technically unacceptable. Relying onthe fact that the TEB reports each contained the statement,"both proposals were judged technically acceptable," Aydinmaintains that the contrary determination by the CRB and SSAlacked a reasonable basis.

At the hearing, the CRB Chairman testified that, as providedin the source selection plan, it was the CRB's responsi-bility to perform its own evaluation of proposals afterconsidering the input of the TEE. Thus, the CRB'sdetermination that Aydin's proposal was technicallyunacceptable was properly based on the CRB's independentassessment of Aydin's proposal after considering the TEEreport and supporting documentation and applying thetechnical weighting factors established in the sourceselection plan. Tr. at 76-79.

The evaluation of technical proposals and the resultingdecision as to whether certain proposals are within thecompetitive range are determinations primarily within theagency's discretion; we will review those determinationsonly to determine whether they were reasonable and

7At the hearing, the TEB Chairman testified that the TEB didnot believe it was the TEB's function "to give a thumbs upor thumbs down" regarding technical acceptability ofproposals. Tr. at 193,

6The weighting factors were established in the sourceselection plan prior to evaluation of the proposals; the TEBdid not have access to the weighting factors during itsevaluation.

5 B-249539

consistent with the RFP's evaluation criteria, QmjjdresXAtgsc.a, B-248325, June 18, 1992, 92-1 CPD 1 534; Ronnoc£lLIcf, B-243729, Aug. 19, 1991, 91-2 CPD ¶ 163. Aprotesterts mere disagreement with the evaluation does notestablish that it was unreasonable, United HealthServ Inc.,B-232640 et ., Jan. 18, 1989, 89-1 CPD 91 43. Further, asource selection official is not bound by the scoring of thetechnical evaluators, provided the ultimate decision has areasonable basis and is consistent with the evaluationcriteria. CRC Sy.. Inc ., B-207847, May 2, 1983, 63-1 CPD1 462.

Prior to the hearing, the agency provided a point-by-pointsummary of the bases for determining that Aydin's proposalwas technically unacceptable in which it noted that both TEBreports listed numerous flaws and omissions in Aydin'sproposal. For example, with regard to signal processing,the first report stated:

"Fundamental analysis provided of the transmitterdesign changes is specious as indicated by changesin factors such as false al;crm, receiver noisefactor, signal-to-noise ratio, pulse integrationand Swerling case with no rationale provided. Thenet result of the analysis is a transmitter powerrequirement that exceeds the systei. 'apabilities,yet no discussion of managing this considerablerisk is identified.

"Blind speeds, range resolution, MTI (movingtarget indicator] and doppler processing tradeoffs(are] not addressed or given cursoryconsideration.

"Proposed concept of pulse doppler waveforms isnot well defined. SET-15 impact of new waveforms(is] not described.

"Selected receiver specification requirements arenot considered such as SCI (signal-to-clutterimprovement] and angle error estimnte."

The agency also pointed out that, following review ofAydin's responses to the discussion questions, the secondTEB report's criticism of Aydin's proposal regarding signalprocessing was even more explicit, stating:

"Offeror's performance analysis using the RGCALCprogram to predict the improved radar rangedetection is faulty. Values were changed, e.g.false alarm, receiver noise factor, signal-to-noise ratio, pulse integration and Swerling case,that distort the result. The RGCALC program cited

6 B-249539

in tie proposal on page 24 was used to validatethese performance analysis concerns. The programwas run to evaluate the impact of changing theprogram parameters cited above and indicated theofferor's performance predicted was at least twicewhat it would be if the values were not altered.Further, the offeror failed to follow the basicinstructions for using the RGCALC program forcoherent processing of radars, a fundamental errorthat indicates the offeror's lack of radarknowledge. Despite these errors, the net resultof the analysis is a transmitter power requirementthat exceeds the system capabilities, yet nodiscussion of managing this considerable risk isidentified, This would actually cause damage tothe existing equipment,

"Fundamental basic radar design tradeoffs such asblind speeds, range resolution, MTI and dopplerprocessing were not addressed or were givencursory consideration; therefore, not allowing theevaluators to fully assess the proposed uesign ofthese key signal processing features.

"Proposed concept of pulse doppler waveforms isnot well defined. (Paragraph] 3.1.3.2.2 [of theproposal] states the waveform generator sendswaveform/timing data to SET-15 without discussionof the effect of waveform changes on SET-15.Offeror is unaware of the proposed waveform designchanges' impact on SET-15.

"Selected receiver specification requirements werenot addressed such as Signal-to-ClutterImprovement (SCI) and Angle Error Estimate. Theseare important current system characteristics thatmust be maintained in the newly designed SignalProcessor. Failure to maintain these requirementsdowngrades the system's ability to perform itscurrent mission, as well as the new missionsundertaken by this modification."

With regard to the overall risks posed by Aydin's proposal,the second TEB report found significant risks due to Aydin's"less than full understanding of the requirements," andconcluded that "[o]verall, (Aydin] failed to demonstrate areasonable probability of performing the technical aspectsof the work."

At the hearing, the CRB Chairman discussed yet anotherreason the CRB independently determined that Aydin'sproposal was technically unacceptable. He testified thatthe agency anticipated approximately 12,000 of the

7 B-24 9539

25,000 technical drawings related to the AN-TPS-59 radarsystem would have to be changed due to the systemmodifications; Aydin's proposal anticipated changingapproximately 500 drawings, Tr. at 217, 278-280, Aydin'sown expert consultant testified that, after reviewingAydin's proposal, he prepared a list of 13 technicalquestions, that he believed the agency should have askedAydin during discuss4ons, Under cross-examination, Aydin'sexpert acknowledged tihat the questions he proposed soughtmissing information that was necessary to understand Aydin'sproposed design. Tr, at 344.

'IWe have reviewed Ayd;Ln's proposal, its responses to thediscussion questions, and the documentation supporting theTEB's and CRB's evaluation of Aydin's proposals, includingthe individual evaluator worksheets. We have alsoconsidered the hearing testimony of Aydin's witnesses,including that of its expert consultant. It is clear fromthe record that the agency's evaluation, summarized above,accurately reflected deficiencies in Aydin's proposal andprovided a rational basis for the determination by the CRBand the SSA that Aydin's proposal was technicallyunacceptable; further, this determination was consistentwith the evaluation criteria established in the RFP.Aydin's crntrary assertion is without merit.

Aydin next contends that the agency failed to conductmeaningful discussions. Specifically, Adyin maintains that,to the extent its proposal was considered "unacceptable" inthe area of signal processing, the agency's discussionquestions failed, to reasonably lead Aydin to address thataspect of its proposal.

Procuring agencies are obligated to conduct written or oraldiscussions with all-responsible offerors within thecompetitive range, advising them of deficiencies in theirproposals so that they have an opportunity to satisfy thegovernment's requirements. Federal Acquisition Regulation(FAR) § 15.610. However, the requirement for meaningfuldiscussions does not mean that offerors are entitled to all-encompassing discussions, Avdin Corp., B-227817, Sept. 28,1987, 87-2 CPD ¶ 306; nor are agencies required to "spoonfee!¶" offerors with regard to every aspect of theirproposals that receive less than the optimal rating, or toconduct successive rounds of discussions until alldeficiencies are corrected. Ebasco Constructors. Inc.et al., B-244406 et al., Oct. 16, 1991, 91-2 CPD ¶ 341.Rather, agencies are only required to lead offerors intoareas of their proposals needing amplification. AdvinCorn., supra.

Here, the agency provided Adyin with 20 questions regardingits technical proposal, at least 5 of which it asserts

8 5-249539

should have elicited responses from Aydin which addressedthe deficiencies in its proposal with respect to signalprocessing. In this regard, the agency first refers toquestion 2A, which asked Aydin to "[(explain the risks ofperforming real-time processing in the UNIX based dataprocessor," The agency states that the signal processingportion of Aydin's proposal did not discuss where real timeprocessing would be done and did not discuss risk managementfor signal processing. At the hearing, the CRB Chairmanexplained, "question 2A was asked, (in part] . . . todetermine Aydiri's understanding of the . . . current radar,because all real time processing is done in the analogsignal processor and digital processor." Tr. at 92.Aydints expert acknowledged that real time processing is"usually the basic signal processing processes that areinvolved in the radar." Tr. at 339.

Adyin's response to question 2A consisted of fourparagraphs, one of which discussed signal processing aspectsof its proposal.9 At the hearing, Aydin's expertconsultant testified that question 2A would not have led himto address the signal processing deficiencies discussed inthe TEB report, Tr. at 303; however, he could not explainwhy Aydin's response to question 2A, in fact, discussedaspects related to signal processing. The followingcolloquy occurred between agency counsel and Aydin's expert:

"Q. Did you look at the Aydin responses to(question 2A]?

"A. I did.

"Q. Can you explain to me why Aydin addressed thededicated processor and the signal processorin this question if it didn't lead them tothat area?

"A. This is [question] 2A you are referring to?

'At the hearing, Aydin's proposal manager testified, "wetook the strAtegy deliberately not to expand beyond thequestions that were (asked] . . . . (W]e cut a lot ofverbiage out that wasn't responsive to the questions. wetold our question responders not to respond-beyonid the scopeof the question. We didn't want to hurt, a//position that wethought was acceptable." Tr. at 357-358' Although theagency placed no page limitation on responses to discussionquestions, Aydin's entire response to the agency's 20technical questions consisted of less than 23 pages ofnarrative, 2 pages of drawings, and one 4-page brochureregarding a piece of commercial equipment.

9 B-249539

"Q, Right,

"A. I don't have a copy of their responses.I did read them. May I see theresponses, please?

(A copy of Aydin responses is provided.)

"Q. I direct your attention to paragraphthree on page one of (Aydin's responsesto] question 2A.

"A. The one that starts with the word('second ['1?

"0. Yes, the following paragraph.

(Pause)

"A. I can't answer your question," Tr. 339-340.

The agency also referred to question 2B as one which shouldhave led Aydin to discuss specific signal processingproblems in its proposal. This question stated:

"Explain maximum PRF ,' Ose repetition frequency]when using the 7000 micro-secopd pulse width shownin the proposal. Additionally, explain powersupply loading with large pulse width."

The agency states that Aydin's fundaiiental analysis of itstransmitter design 'Indicated system changes to certainsignal processing parameters without providing anyrationale; those unexplained changes caused the agencyconcern regarding the feasibility of Aydin's proposed designir. the area of signal processing. Among other things, theagency was concerned about the relationship between tnepower supply and pulse widths necessary for Aydin's proposedapproach to signal processing. At the hearing, the CRBChairman explained that question 2B was asked because:

"the TPS-59 upgrade requirements in thespec[ification] allow no modifications to the[radar] antenna. . . . So the only other place tomake the (power] gains necessary to meet therequirements of the RFP are in signal processing."Tr. at 93.

Again, Aydin's answer to this question, in fact, addressedgeneral aspects of its signal processing design. The CRBChairman testified:

10 B-249539

"the answer (Aydin] gave discussed signalprocessing, so they understood from the questionthat was the area that the question wasdiscussing, but again the answer that they gave tothe question was just a cursory statement . .('Jwe will use wave forms that will allow us tomeat the effective radiated power,('] period,withou\. any specifics or backup." Tr. at 94-95.

Although Aydin's consultant believed the response to thisquestion was more reasonably limited to discussing a veryspecific aspect of signal processing, he agreed that thequestion relatad to signal processing. At the hearing, hetestified, "Question 2B does have to do with signalprocessing 't deals with the detection aspect."Tr. at 304.

Aydin complains that, the questions posed by the agency didnot specifically address the individual weaknesses anddeficiencies enumerated in the TEB reports. The agencyresponds that such specificity was not required. At thehearing, the TEB Chairman explained that there were morethan 300 separate technical requirements associated with thetechnical evaluation factors. Tr. at 147. The agencymaintains that to have asked specific questions directed atevery specific requirement relating to an evaluation factorwould have constituted technical leveling.

In evaluating whether there has been sufficient diuclrosureof deficiencies, the focus is not on whether the agencydescribed deficiencies in such-intimate detail that therecould be no doubt as to their identification and nature, butwhether the agency imparted e'nr'ugh information to theofferor to afford it a fair and reasonable Opportunity inthe context of the procurement to identify' and correctdeficiencies in its pvcvosal. Ea.4an; McAllister Assocs.,Inc., B-231983, Oct. 2';., 1988, 88-2 CPD 9 405. The degreeof specificity necessary in disclosing deficiencies to meetthe requirement for meaningful discussions is not aconstant, but rather, varies according to the degree ofspecificity of the solicitation. Where a solicitation setsforth in great detail what is required of an offeror,discussions may be more general and still give an offeror afair and reasonable opportunity to identify and correctdeficiencies. id.; Stewart-Warner Corp., B-235774, Oct. 5,19,89, 89-2 CPD 9 314.

Here, the solicitation provided abundant technicalspecificity with regard; to what offerors were required topropose. As part of the> lengthy statement of work andsystem specification, the RFP identified more than 300specific requirements ofterors were expected to address. Inaddition to the specific information in the solicitation

11 B-249539

itself, the Marine Corps made available a comprehensivetechnical library comprised of numerous volumes of technicalmanuals, drawings, and instructions related to the AN/TPS-59radar system.

Although the agency could have provided discussion questionswhich, in essence, duplicated the discussion of specificweaknesses and deficiencies in the TEB reports, the, agencyreasonably believed that Aydin's answers to such leadingquestions would have provided little insight regarding thedepth of Aydin's knowledge and expertise. We find that theagency reasonably led Aydin into the areas of its proposalwhich required amplification and provided Aydin anopportunity to demonstrate its knowledge and expertise withregard to those areas. Aydin's conscious election to limitthe scope of its answers does not render the discussionsless than meaningful.

Specifically, with regard to the evaluation area of signalprocessing, we find it telling that Aydin'sIresponseS to atleast two of the discussion questions addressed its approachto signal processing. Although Aydin's responses failed todiscuss this aspect of its proposal in any significantdetail, this failure appears to have been the result ofAydin's conscious decision to limit the scope of its answersbecause it "didn't want to hurt a position that (it] thoughtwas acceptable." Tr. at 357-358. Since Aydin's responsesto the discussion questions demonstrate Aydin's recognitionthat its approach to signal processing was an area ofconcern to the agency, we find that the agency's discussionsadequately led Aydin into this area.

The protest is denied.

t James F. HinchmanGeneral Counsel

12 B-249539