Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc., B-275830, B-275830.2, B-275830.3,

Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc., B-275830, B-275830.2, B-275830.3, BNUMBER: B-275830, B-275830.2, B-275830.3 DATE: April 7, 1997 TITLE: Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc., B-275830, B-275830.2, B-275830.3, April 7, 1997 ********************************************************************** 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:Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. File: B-275830, B-275830.2, B-275830.3 Date:April 7, 1997 Gregory A. Smith, Esq., Richard P. Rector, Esq., Kevin P. Mullin, Esq., and Chandra Emery, Esq., Piper & Marbury; Donald C. Holmes, Esq., and Michael A. Gordon, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, for the protester. Caryl A. Potter, Esq., Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., Elizabeth A. Ferrell, Esq., Bruce H. Leshine, Esq., and Drew W. Marrocco, Esq., Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, for Avondale Industries, Inc., the intervenor. Robinwyn D. Lewis, Esq., Janice M. Passo, Esq., Susan P. Raps, Esq., Robert E. Lieblich, Esq., Diane S. Schnittman, Esq., and Mary L. Oates Walker, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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 agency evaluation of proposed information system--offered to meet requirement for capability to concurrently develop, capture, update and re-use data in electronic form in a fashion that leads to data integrity, efficiency, and configuration control throughout the life cycle of amphibious ships being procured--is denied where agency reasonably determined that (1) offeror would encounter significant difficulty in integrating, and maintaining data consistency [DELETED] in its proposed information system, and (2) if [DELETED], the design and construction process would lose efficiency, leading to additional costs and delays. 2. Protest that agency improperly failed to quantify probable life cycle cost (LCC) savings for each offer is denied where the solicitation nowhere expressly stated that the agency would conduct a traditional probable cost analysis, but instead provided that agency would adjectivally rate proposed approaches to LCC reduction, and record supports agency determination that awardee's proposed LCC reduction approach provided the greatest probability of achieving the greatest LCC savings. DECISION Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc., the prime contractor of the Ingalls Full Service Contractor team (Ingalls), protests the award of a contract to Avondale Industries, Inc., the prime contractor of the Avondale Alliance team, under request for proposals No. N00024-96-R-2101, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), for the detail design, total ship systems integration, construction, testing, logistics and life cycle support planning of the lead ship (LPD 17) in the new San Antonio-class Amphibious Transport Dock ships. Ingalls protests the evaluation of technical and price proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The LPD 17 will be the first of a new class of twelve 684-foot, 25,000-ton amphibious transport dock ships designed to transport and land up to 720 Marines, their equipment and supplies by means of embarked landing craft or amphibious vehicles augmented by helicopters. The solicitation contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for the LPD 17, with options for two follow-on ships. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose offer was most advantageous to the government under four evaluation categories: (1) detail design, total ship systems integration, testing, logistics and life cycle support planning, (2) Integrated Product Data Environment (IPDE), (3) ownership cost--that is, life cycle cost (LCC)--reduction approach, and (4) price (cost). The nonprice categories were "significantly more important" than the price category. In addition, the solicitation provided that except in the event that the two highest ranking technical proposals were found to be technically equal after evaluating categories 2 and 3, category 1 would be rated for acceptability/unacceptability only.[1] Of the remaining nonprice categories, category 3 was more important than category 2. The solicitation provided that categories 2 and 3 would be "evaluated and assigned one of the following adjective ratings: (1) unacceptable, (2) marginal, (3) acceptable, (4) outstanding." The solicitation went on to state that "[t]his should result in award to the Offeror whose proposal offers the highest likelihood of reducing life cycle ownership costs, excluding propulsion drive train considerations, without sacrificing ship performance and operational readiness.