By Geoff Fein
A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) decision on a DRS [DRS] protest regarding the common enterprise display system (CEDS) display consoles, denied the first four bases of protest raised by the company, but did conclude the Navy erred on the competitor’s past performance.
The GAO decision led the Navy, earlier this month, to lift a stop work order in place since November and allowed General Dynamics [GD] Advanced Information Systems (GDAIS) to proceed with work.
Both companies were awarded phase II development contracts for CEDS on Nov. 2, 2007.
The two CEDS contracts are five-year Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contracts, which include production options, according to Naval Sea Systems Command.
General Dynamics won a $83 million award and DRS was given a $62.6 million contract. (NAVSEA is the contracting activity (Defense Daily, April 10).
“CEDS is a family of displays that will be implemented across platform systems on Navy surface ships, submarines, and aircraft. Display consoles provide a common human machine interface to the platform open architecture computing environment. Remote displays will be used in conjunction with display consoles to support warfighter team situational awareness,” according to the NAVSEA award.
Neither GAO, DRS nor General Dynamics would comment on the protest specifics.
DRS protested the contract award on Nov. 19. In February, GAO sustained in part and denied in part the protest.
DRS’ protest raised numerous challenges regarding the Navy’s evaluation of General Dynamics’ proposals, a NAVSEA spokeswoman said.
“First, the protester alleged that GD had an impermissible organizational conflict of interest, specifically with regard to solicitations separation kernel technology requirements, which the Navy failed to recognize and take into account in its evaluation of proposals. Second, DRS alleged that the agency failed to engage in meaningful discussions with the firm regarding its technical proposal,” according to the spokeswoman.
“Third, the protester contended that the Navy’s evaluation of offeror’s proposals under the technical and management factors was in various ways improper. Fourth, DRS contended that the Navy performed a flawed cost evaluation of GD’s proposal. Lastly, DRS argued that the agency’s evaluation of GD’s past performance was improper,” the NAVSEA spokeswoman added.
GAO denied the first four bases of protest.
“First, GAO found GD did not have an impermissible organizational conflict of interest, and that DRS’ central assertion here–that GD had improperly gained inside knowledge and helped to shape the separation kernel standards applicable to the CEDS procurement was unfounded,” the spokeswoman said. “GAO also determined that the Navy’s discussions with DRS regarding the offerors proposal were meaningful, and that the specific weakness which DRS claimed the Navy failed to mention in discussions were first introduced in DRS’ discussion responses and were not part of its initial proposal. GAO also concluded that the Navy’s evaluation of offeror’s proposal under the technical, management, and cost factors was reasonable.”
GAO did conclude that the Navy’s evaluation of General Dynamics’ past performance was not reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation:
- it failed to adequately consider all relevant information;
- it failed to adequately consider the relevance of the offerors past performance information;
- and several of the identified strengths are factually inaccurate and/or redundant.
“In light of these deficiencies in the agency’s evaluation of GD’s past performance, GAO could not reasonably determine what GD’s rating should have properly been and, therefore, concluded that the agency’s actions were prejudicial to DRS,” the spokeswoman said.
GAO recommended NAVSEA reevaluate proposals with regard to past performance, and then rely on that revised evaluation in making a new source selection determination, the spokeswoman added. “GAO also recommended that DRS be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys fees, limited to the costs relating to the ground on which we sustain the protest.”