AT&T Corporation, Advanced Technology Systems

B-261154.4 Oct 16, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest against source selection is denied where (1) agency reasonably determined that awardee had proposed a fundamentally less complex approach to deploying an underseas surveillance system which was more likely to successfully and timely deploy a survivable underwater segment than was the protester's. (2) the record provides no basis for concluding that the awardee's contract cost was likely to be so substantially higher than the protester's as to offset the awardee's superiority under the substantially more important technical factors. The solicitation further required offerors to submit cost proposals which explained: "in whatever detail is required to demonstrate cost reasonableness and supportability. View Decision Matter of: AT&T Corporation, Advanced Technology Systems File: B-261154.4 Date: October 16, 1995 * Redacted Decision Protest against source selection is denied where (1) agency reasonably determined that awardee had proposed a fundamentally less complex approach to deploying an underseas surveillance system which was more likely to successfully and timely deploy a survivable underwater segment than was the protester's, and (2) the record provides no basis for concluding that the awardee's contract cost was likely to be so substantially higher than the protester's as to offset the awardee's superiority under the substantially more important technical factors. Attorneys DECISION AT&T Corporation, Advanced Technology Systems, protests the award of a contract to Loral Federal Systems under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00039-94-R-0020, issued by Department of the Navy, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), for the demonstration/validation (DEM/VAL) phase of an underseas surveillance system. AT&T challenges the evaluation of cost and technical proposals. [1] We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract to design, develop, document, fabricate, assemble, inspect, integrate, and support the development of a DEM/VAL phase prototype of the Advanced Deployable System (ADS), a passive underseas surveillance system providing tactical warfare information to commanders in littoral (shallow) water areas. The solicitation required offerors to submit a technical proposal and system design documentation package which: "in combination shall be sufficiently specific, detailed, and complete so as to clearly and fully demonstrate to the Government that the prospective offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements for and problems inherent in performing, as well as the capability to perform the Demonstration and Validation Phase and delivery of ADS." The solicitation further required offerors to submit cost proposals which explained: "in whatever detail is required to demonstrate cost reasonableness and supportability, the methodology used to estimate each element of cost (e.g., labor, material, etc.). Enough data shall be provided so that an independent cost analysis verification can be performed." In this regard, offerors were required to submit their cost estimates using a work breakdown structure (WBS) furnished with the solicitation and to provide: "[a]dequate information . . . to allow Government evaluation of proposed labor hours, material costs, subcontractor costs, other direct costs and related overhead costs by the fourth level of the WBS. Major subcontractor estimates (i.e., exceeding Five Million Dollars ($5M)) shall be submitted using the same formats and degree of rationale." The solicitation generally provided for award to be made to the offeror whose proposal is "considered most likely to satisfy the requirements of the government and to be in the best interest of the Government, cost and other factors considered." The RFP provided for the evaluation of proposals on the basis of the following four specific evaluation factors (in descending order of importance): (1) overall system design/development and (2) prototype development, implementation and demonstration, which were "substantially more important than" (3) management and (4) cost. Cost proposals were to be evaluated for (1) contract cost affordability/reasonableness and (2) life-cycle cost. With respect to the proposed contract costs, the RFP stated that: "[t]he Government will conduct its own evaluation of these costs and the associated ranges, and will rely on this evaluation when determining the award. The Government's cost evaluation will be affected by the quality of the supporting data provided and on the basis of traceability of the proposed costs to the technical/management proposal, as well as the offeror's demonstrated ability to deliver large, technically complex development programs within budget.