Raytheon Company

B-413981 Jan 17, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Raytheon Company, of Sterling, Virginia, protests the Defense Threat Reduction Agency's (DTRA or agency) award of a task order to Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. HDTRA1-14-WMD-0058 to provide engineering support and vulnerability assessments. Raytheon asserts that it is the incumbent contractor, and protests that the agency unreasonably evaluated Leidos's technical approach, failed to properly evaluate Leidos's proposed costs, and performed a flawed best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest. 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 File:  B-413981 Date:  January 17, 2017 Michael A. Hordell, Esq., Gary J. Campbell, Esq., G. Matthew Koehl, Esq., Kristopher J. Berr, Esq., and Erin F. Masini, Esq., Pepper Hamilton LLP, for the protester. Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Protorae Law PLLC, for Leidos, Inc., the intervenor. Judith L. Richardson, Esq., Defense Threat Reduction Agency, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated awardee’s technical proposal is denied where agency reasonably considered awardee’s innovative technical approach and concluded that it was superior to protester’s approach. 2.  Agency reasonably determined that awardee’s proposed rates were realistic where those rates reflected the awardee’s proposed technical approach of [redacted]. DECISION Raytheon Company, of Sterling, Virginia, protests the Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s (DTRA or agency) award of a task order to Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. HDTRA1-14-WMD-0058 to provide engineering support and vulnerability assessments.[1]  Raytheon asserts that it is the incumbent contractor,[2] and protests that the agency unreasonably evaluated Leidos’s technical approach, failed to properly evaluate Leidos’s proposed costs, and performed a flawed best-value tradeoff.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND On May 26, 2016, the agency issued RFP No. HDTRA1-14-WMD-0058 to contractors that had previously been awarded indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts entitled “Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction and Research and Technology Development.”  AR, Tab 5, RFP at 000002.[3]  The solicitation contained contract line item numbers (CLINs) to perform basic research and development (R&D) and operations and maintenance (O&M) activities (referred to as the “base” CLINs), along with option CLINs to provide “surge support.”  RFP at 000003-15.  For each of the CLINs, the solicitation provided estimated levels of effort in terms of full-time equivalent personnel (FTEs).[4]  Id. The solicitation contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract, and provided that the source selection decision would be made on a best-value basis, establishing the following evaluation factors:  mission capability,[5] past performance, and cost/price.[6] On July 1, proposals were submitted by three offerors, including Raytheon and Leidos.[7]  Following the agency’s evaluation of those proposals, discussions were conducted, and final proposal revisions (FPRs) were submitted and evaluated.  Leidos’s and Raytheon’s FPRs were evaluated as follows:   Leidos Raytheon Mission Capability       Technical Approach Exceptional Good   Management Approach Acceptable Acceptable Past Performance Exceptional Exceptional Evaluated Cost/Price $54,170,049 $54,249,687 AR, Tab 37, Best Value Decision Memorandum, at 000019. In evaluating Leidos’s proposal under the technical approach evaluation subfactor, the agency identified several strengths, including “two major innovative strengths,” and concluded that Leidos’s proposal demonstrated “an exceptionally thorough understanding” of the contract requirements.  Id.