Hughes Missile Systems Company

Hughes Missile Systems Company BNUMBER: B-272418; B-272418.2; 272418.3 DATE: October 30, 1996 TITLE: Hughes Missile Systems Company ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 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. Matter of:Hughes Missile Systems Company File: B-272418; B-272418.2; 272418.3 Date:October 30, 1996 Mark D. Colley, Esq., David P. Metzger, Esq., Laura E. Gasser, Esq., Craig A. Holman, Esq., Laura A. Eilers, Esq., Melinda C. Burrows, Esq., and Bradley D. Wine, Esq., Holland & Knight, and David L. Fowler, Esq., for the protester. William A. Roberts III, Esq., Lee P. Curtis, Esq., Jerone C. Cecelic, Esq., J. Eric Andre, Esq., and Terry Petrie, Esq., Howrey & Simon, and Bucky P. Mansuy, Esq., for Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc., David V. Anthony, Esq., Gregory A. Smith, Esq., Mary Ita Snyder, Esq., Stanley R. Soya, Esq., and John E. Benedict, Esq., Piper & Marbury, and Stephen E. Seele, Esq., for McDonnell Douglas Aerospace Corporation, intervenors. Gregory Petkoff, Esq., John A. Dodds, Esq., Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., Capt. Rebecca Pearson, and Gary J. Rosnick, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest against evaluation of past performance is denied where information reasonably available to the procuring agency supported the report of the agency administering the protester's contract to the effect that protester was deficient in its cost/schedule performance on that contract. 2. Protest that agency did not adequately consider the complexity of the products being developed and/or procured when evaluating past cost/schedule performance and arriving at an overall rating, and instead placed undue emphasis on program complexity, is denied where offerors were advised prior to the closing date for receipt of proposals that agency viewed program similarity as more important than product similarity. DECISION Hughes Missile Systems Company protests the Department of the Air Force's award of contracts to Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc. (LM) and McDonnell Douglas Aerospace Corporation (MD), under request for proposals (RFP) No. F08626-96-R-0002, for the definition and development of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). Hughes challenges the past performance, cost and technical evaluations. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The JASSM missile will be an autonomous, precision strike standoff weapon, to be carried aboard a number of types of aircraft, which can be launched from beyond the range of enemy air defenses and will provide the capability to strike heavily defended, high value targets. Offerors were advised that the agency considered the need for such a standoff attack capability to be urgent and compelling. The solicitation contemplated the award of two cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts for a 24-month Program Definition and Risk Reduction (PDRR) phase, which would include priced options for a follow-on cost-plus-incentive-fee Engineering, Management and Development (EMD) phase, to be exercised on the basis of a downselect competition between the two PDRR contractors. The downselect contractor will then commence production, which is expected to include 10 annual production lots. Offerors were required to furnish cost and pricing information for the PDRR and EMD phases and cost estimates for the production phase; during the downselect competition, the PDRR contractors will have the opportunity to update their EMD phase pricing and to submit cost and pricing information for the production quantities. Award was to be made to the offerors whose proposals were most advantageous to the government under three broad criteria: (1) past performance--including past technical performance (with factors for product performance, computer software, and aircraft integration) and past affordability performance (with factors for manufacturing and cost/schedule), which were of equal weight--which was equal in importance to the aggregate of (2) technical performance (key performance parameters, other requirements, and integrated master plan and schedule) and (3) affordability, which were of equal weight.