Raytheon Company- Space and Airborne Systems

B-411631 Sep 16, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Raytheon Company, Space and Airborne Systems, of El Segundo, California, protests the issuance of a task order to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, of Linthicum, Maryland, by the Department of the Army, under request for task order execution plan (RTEP) No. R2-3G-0823, issued to holders of the Army's Rapid Response-Third Generation multiple-award contract, for the purpose of prototyping, designing, integrating and testing a Synthetic Aperture Radar/Ground Moving Target Indicator (SAR/GMTI) long range radar. Raytheon alleges that the Army's technical evaluation was unreasonable, principally because the Army conducted inadequate and misleading discussions. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Raytheon Company, Space and Airborne Systems File:  B-411631 Date:  September 16, 2015 Stuart W. Turner, Esq., Mark D. Colley, Esq., Emma V. Broomfield, Esq., and Dominique L. Casimir, Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, and Sharon S. Jones, Esq.,  Raytheon Co., for the protester. Jonathan J. Frankel, Esq., Karla J. Letsche, Esq., John P. Janecek, Esq., Craig LaChance, Esq., and Brett Sander, Esq., Frankel PLLC, and William J. Colwell, Esq., Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, for the intervenor. Debra J. Talley, Esq., Jennifer Ivanowski, Esq., and Daniel R. Wilmoth, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Eric M. Ransom, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Agency’s discussions with the protester were meaningful where they led the protester into the areas of its proposal that required revision. 2.  Protest that agency’s technical evaluation was unequal and unreasonable is denied where the record demonstrates that differences in the proposals supported differing evaluation results. DECISION Raytheon Company, Space and Airborne Systems, of El Segundo, California, protests the issuance of a task order to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, of Linthicum, Maryland, by the Department of the Army, under request for task order execution plan (RTEP) No. R2-3G-0823, issued to holders of the Army’s Rapid Response-Third Generation multiple-award contract, for the purpose of prototyping, designing, integrating and testing a Synthetic Aperture Radar/Ground Moving Target Indicator (SAR/GMTI) long range radar.  Raytheon alleges that the Army’s technical evaluation was unreasonable, principally because the Army conducted inadequate and misleading discussions.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army released the RTEP on January 20, 2015, for the purpose of selecting a contractor to perform studies and analysis with the end goals of prototyping, designing, integrating and testing a SAR/GMTI long range radar that can detect moving and stationary targets and provide real time data analysis.  The RTEP performance work statement (PWS) specified that the contractor effort included hardware development, software development, engineering support, and program management support necessary to prototype the required long range radar.  The PWS further advised that the analysis and prototype from this procurement is intended to be transitioned to the Army’s Airborne Reconnaissance Low-Enhanced program, for integration on the De Havilland Canada-8 (DHC-8) Series 300 aircraft for operation at altitudes of 15,000 to 25,000 feet.  The PWS provided that at the conclusion of the study effort, “[t]he contractor shall deliver one (1) [long range radar] prototype (B-kit) and one (1) DHC-8 300 aircraft integration [kit] (A-kit).”  Agency Report (AR), Tab AK, PWS, at 1. The RTEP anticipated the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order with a base period of 24 months.  The RTEP provided that the task order would be issued on a best-value basis considering three evaluation factors:  technical, cost, and past performance.  The RTEP advised that among the evaluation factors, technical was slightly more important than cost, and cost was significantly more important than past performance.  The RTEP cautioned that “proposal evaluation will be limited to the information provided by the Offeror,” and that “Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete, thorough, and accurate evaluation of the submitted proposal.”  AR, Tab AJ, RTEP, at 4. Concerning the technical evaluation factor, the RTEP instructed that “the Offeror shall describe its methods and approach for fulfilling the requirements of each of the task areas listed under [the] PWS and with emphasis on PWS paragraphs/subparagraphs 3.1 through 4.0, 6.0, 8.0 and 9.0.”  Id.  The RTEP evaluation criteria further provided that: The [proposal] will be evaluated to determine the extent to whic...