ITT Industries, Inc., B-294389; B-294389.2; B-294389.3; B-294389.4, October 20, 2004

ITT Industries, Inc., B-294389; B-294389.2; B-294389.3; B-294389.4, October 20, 2004 TITLE: ITT Industries, Inc., B-294389; B-294389.2; B-294389.3; B-294389.4, October 20, 2004 BNUMBER: B-294389; B-294389.2; B-294389.3; B-294389.4 DATE: October 20, 2004 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: ITT Industries, Inc. File: B-294389; B-294389.2; B-294389.3; B-294389.4 Date: October 20, 2004 Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Joseph J. Dyer, Esq., Grace Bateman, Esq., Z. Taylor Shultz, Esq., and Amanda B. Weiner, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, and Thomas C. Wheeler, Esq., Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., Sheila C. Stark, Esq., and Eliza P. Nagle, Esq., Piper Rudnick, for the protester. David A. Churchill, Esq., Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq., William R. Stoughton, Esq., Kathy C. Weinberg, Esq., Kristen G. Schulz, Esq., Cynthia J. Robertson, Esq., James A. Trilling, Esq., and David Fagundes, Esq., Jenner & Block, for General Dynamics Decision Systems, an intervenor. Joshua Kranzberg, Esq., Walter Harbort, Jr., Esq., Mark A. Sagan, Esq., Paula K. Pennypacker, Esq., Denise M. Marrama, Esq., Frank V. Di Nicola, Esq., and MichaelA A. Stephens, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest of technical and performance risk evaluation is denied, where record supports the agency*s assessment of offerors* proposed joint tactical radio systems and otherwise indicates that proposals were evaluated fairly and in accordance with stated evaluation criteria. 2. Cost realism analysis is unobjectionable, where record shows that the technical evaluators and Defense Contract Audit Agency evaluated proposed costs; this information was considered by the source selection authority in making his award decision; and the protester has not shown that additional costs were likely to be incurred during performance. DECISION ITT Industries, Inc. (ITT) protests the Department of the Army*s award of a contract to General Dynamics Decision Systems (GDDS), under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAB07-03-R-E808, for the development of joint tactical radio systems (JTRS). ITT challenges the evaluation of proposals and resulting source selection decision. We deny the protest. The JTRS, which are being developed through a series of acquisitions called *clusters,* are software-defined programmable radios that will replace all existing tactical radios for the Department of Defense warfighters. This procurement is the JTRS *Cluster 5* acquisition, under which the awardee will develop three discrete *form factors,* or radio sets: handheld, manpack, and small form fit radios.[1] The handheld radio is held in the hand or worn on the uniform; the manpack radio is mounted in a vehicle or helicopter, or carried in a soldier*s rucksack; and the small form fit radio will be integrated into other equipment. The solicitation contemplated that the JTRS Cluster 5 requirements would be met using a *spiral development acquisition approach.* During *Spiral 1,* the contractor will design, develop, test, document, and deliver single-channel handheld radios, twoA manpack radios, and ancillary items such as vehicle mounting bases, power adapters, battery chargers, charger base stations, and antennas. During *SpiralA 2,* the contractor will design, develop, test, document, and deliver handheld, manpack, and small form fit radios (and ancillary items) that expand on Spiral 1 capabilities. The radios are to comply with mandatory performance requirement specifications (PRS) and the statement of work. The RFP also included *objective* PRS, which are desired but are not mandatory. The RFP contemplated award of a contract with a cost-plus-award-fee system development and demonstration phase effort; fixed-price options for limited production of Spiral 1 radios and ancillary items; fixed-price-incentive-with-successive-targets options for production of Spiral 2 radios and ancillary items; and the acquisition of support services on a time-and-materials basis. (The cost-plus-award-fee effort constitutes approximately 20 percent of the overall contract value, while the fixed-price options together constitute approximately 80A percent of the contract value. Source Selection Authority (SSA) Final Briefing, Cost Factor SlideA 5). The period of performance is from JulyA 16,A 2004 through December 30, 2011. The RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the best value, based upon three evaluation factors: technical, performance risk, and cost/price.