Litton Systems, Inc., Data Systems Division

B-262099 Nov 17, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the specific allegations lack factual support and/or amount to no more than a mere disagreement with the results of the evaluation. There is no basis on which to find the evaluation unreasonable. Protest challenging the agency's conduct of discussions is denied where the record shows that the protester was on notice of the concern at issue and that the agency was not obligated to raise the matter further. Protest challenging the agency's cost realism evaluation of the awardee's proposal is denied where the specific allegations are insufficient to show that the evaluation was unreasonable or arbitrary. REDACTED DECISION A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. View Decision Matter of: Litton Systems, Inc., Data Systems Division File: B-262099 Date: November 17, 1995 *REDACTED DECISION Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the specific allegations lack factual support and/or amount to no more than a mere disagreement with the results of the evaluation, and there is no basis on which to find the evaluation unreasonable. Protest challenging the agency's conduct of discussions is denied where the record shows that the protester was on notice of the concern at issue and that the agency was not obligated to raise the matter further. Protest challenging the agency's cost realism evaluation of the awardee's proposal is denied where the specific allegations are insufficient to show that the evaluation was unreasonable or arbitrary. Attorneys REDACTED DECISION A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. DECISION Litton Systems, Inc., Data Systems Division, protests the award of a contract to Hughes Aircraft Company, Defense Systems Business Unit, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAB07-95-R-H302, issued by the Department of the Army for the development of the Land Warrior System. Litton primarily challenges the Army's technical and cost evaluations. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued February 3, 1995, contemplated award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for the design, development, integration, fabrication, test, and support requirements for the Land Warrior System. This System integrates various components and technologies to enhance the soldier's battlefield capabilities and will be comprised of four subsystems: an individual soldier computer/radio subsystem with global positioning system (GPS) receiver; a protective clothing and individual equipment subsystem; an integrated helmet subsystem; and a modular weapons subsystem. Offerors were required to describe how they would combine these subsystems into an integrated Land Warrior System through the use of nondevelopmental items and the development of new equipment and/or software. In addition, offerors were to integrate certain items of government-furnished equipment that had been developed in conjunction with other Army programs. [1] The RFP's specifications clearly identified both required and desired performance capabilities. Offerors were advised that award would be made to the offeror with the best overall proposal determined to be the most beneficial to the government, with appropriate consideration given to four evaluation factors--technical, integrated product and process development (IPPD), performance risk, and cost. The technical factor was significantly more important than the other factors combined; the IPPD factor was as important as performance risk and cost combined; and the performance risk and cost factors were equally important. The technical factor included the following subfactors: system design and integration; computer/radio subsystem design, development, and integration; software design, development, and integration; integrated helmet subsystem design, development, and integration; weapon subsystem design, development, and integration; and protective clothing and individual equipment design, development, and integration. [2] The IPPD factor, not at issue here, also included a number of subfactors. Proposals would be rated adjectivally under these factors and subfactors as outstanding, good, acceptable, or unacceptable. Offers would be given low, moderate, high, or unknown performance risk ratings based on an assessment of the risks associated with the offerors' past performance.