Raytheon Blackbird Technologies, Inc.

B-417522,B-417522.2 Jul 11, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Raytheon Blackbird Technologies, Inc. (RBT), of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services, Inc. (BAE), of Rockville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N65236-18-R-3119, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Information Warfare Center, Atlantic, for tagging, tracking, and locating (TTL) services. RBT alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated the proposals. 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 Blackbird Technologies, Inc. File:  B-417522; B-417522.2 Date:  July 11, 2019 Robert M. Moore, Esq., Richard O. Wolf, Esq., and John A. Bertino, Esq., Moore & Lee, LLP, and Gregory Moffatt, Esq., Raytheon Company, for the protester. Jamie F. Tabb, Esq., Elizabeth Krabill McIntyre, Esq., and John M. Satira, Esq., Vinson & Elkins LLP, and Catherine K. Ronis, Esq., BAE Systems, Inc., for BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., the intervenor. Scott McGuigan, Esq., and David D. Perrone, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s technical proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was consistent with the proposal and the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 2.  Protest that the agency unreasonably conducted its cost realism evaluation is denied where the record shows that the agency exercised informed judgment in making upward adjustments to the protester’s proposed costs. DECISION Raytheon Blackbird Technologies, Inc. (RBT), of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services, Inc. (BAE), of Rockville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N65236-18‑R‑3119, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Information Warfare Center, Atlantic, for tagging, tracking, and locating (TTL) services.  RBT alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated the proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On December 10, 2018, the agency issued the RFP for training and technical support for various TTL systems.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 1, 11.  The selected contractor would be required to install position location devices on ground vehicles and aircraft belonging to American and host nation forces.  Id. at 11.  Ultimately, the tracking systems would monitor and de-conflict friendly-fire situations.  Id. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a task order with fixed-price and cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee elements with a base period of 1-year and four 1-year option periods.  AR, Tab 1, RFP at 2-9, 51.  Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering technical capability, operating plan, and cost factors.  Id. at 62-67.  When combined, the technical capability and operating plan factors were more important than the cost factor.  Id. at 62. Six offerors submitted proposals prior to the August 28, 2018, closing date.[1]  Combined Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 6.  The agency’s evaluation produced the following relevant results:   RBT BAE Technical Capability Outstanding Outstanding Operating Plan Acceptable Acceptable Total Evaluated Cost $67,000,740 $56,817,668 AR, Tab 2, BCM at 43.  When comparing the RBT and BAE proposals, the source selection authority (SSA) noted that, even though RBT’s proposal was technically superior to BAE’s proposal under the technical capability factor, both proposals were nevertheless similar because they both demonstrated a low risk of unsuccessful performance and extensive highly relevant experience.  Id. at 48.  Further, the SSA concluded that RBT’s technical advantage did not warrant the 17.92 percent price premium, and therefore, the SSA identified BAE’s proposal as offering the better value.  Id. at 48‑49.  After RBT learned that its proposal was unsuccessful, it filed the instant protest with our Office.