Raytheon Company

B-414062.3 Feb 21, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Raytheon Company, of Dulles, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Alion Science and Technology Corporation, of Burr Ridge, Illinois, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-15-R-0069, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for a maintenance and engine replacement program intended to extend the useful life of certain Army watercraft. Raytheon challenges the agency's evaluation of Alion's technical and cost proposals and the best-value determination in making the award. 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-414062.3 Date:  February 21, 2017 Richard O. Wolf, Esq., and Casey J. McKinnon, Esq., Moore & Lee, LLP, for the protester. J. Scott Hommer III, Esq., Keir X. Bancroft, Esq., Miranda S. Riemer, Esq., and Michael T. Francel, Esq., Venable LLP, for Alion Science and Technology Corporation, an intervenor Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Jacquelene Jorgensen, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Gabriel D. Soll, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging an agency’s evaluation of an awardee’s proposal and the agency’s best-value selection decision are denied where the record demonstrates that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Raytheon Company, of Dulles, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Alion Science and Technology Corporation, of Burr Ridge, Illinois, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-15-R-0069, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for a maintenance and engine replacement program intended to extend the useful life of certain Army watercraft.  Raytheon challenges the agency’s evaluation of Alion’s technical and cost proposals and the best-value determination in making the award. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On September 18, 2015, the Army issued RFP No. W56HZV-15-R-0069, seeking proposals to provide the service life extension program and certain maintenance services for the Army’s Landing Craft Utility (LCU) 2000 vessel.[1]  RFP at 5.  The program was intended to extend the useful life of LCU vessels, which otherwise would end in 2017, for up to 10 years.  The extension in usefulness would be achieved primarily by replacing the various engines that provide power to the vessel (referred to as the “repower requirement”).  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1; RFP at 88.  The RFP contemplated the award of a single two-year indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with both fixed-price and cost-reimbursement contract line items.  RFP at 5.  The stated objective of the contract is to complete the maintenance and repower requirements on one LCU vessel.  Id. at 86.  The repower requirement included the design, development, and integration of a new engine suite that provides the various power requirements for the LCU.  Id. at 88.  The power supply consisted of two main engines, two ship’s service diesel generators[2] (SSDGs), an emergency generator, and a bow thruster engine.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP, Attach. 0001, at 1.  The RFP specified that the contractor would be responsible for replacing the SSDGs with generators that would, at minimum, match the generative capacity of the existing engines, but would also be able to supply the anticipated electrical needs for the LCU.  RFP at 88; AR, Tab 4, RFP Attach. 0001, at 5.  The RFP stated that the generator proposed must have the ability to provide the anticipated power requirement and a reserve capacity of 10-20 percent when operating on one generator.  AR, Tab 4, RFP, Attach. 0001, at 6.  Prospective offerors were required to estimate the electrical needs of the LCU based on references provided with the RFP; however, the calculation of the estimates also had to account for other modifications proposed.  Id. at 5-6.  The RFP provided a list of Government Furnished Information (GFI) that would be provided to the contractor, which included vessel drawings and other engineering information owned by the government.  RFP at 108; AR, Tab 5, RFP, Attach. 0003.  The GFI list identified a study that was performed by the Naval Surface Warfare Center related to the repower requirements of the LCU (the “Navy study”).  AR, Tab 5, RFP, Attach. 0003, at 2; Protest, Attach.