Raytheon Company

B-417731,B-417731.2 Oct 03, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Raytheon Company, located in Indianapolis, Indiana, protests the award of a contract to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), located in Reston, Virginia, by the Department of the Navy under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0016418RWP44, for the overhaul, repair, and material and technical support of subsystems of the MK-99 fire control system. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably adjusted Raytheon's proposed costs for the RFP's cost-reimbursable line items, improperly failed to conduct discussions, and engaged in a flawed best-value tradeoff analysis that ignored significant weaknesses in SAIC's proposal. 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-417731; B-417731.2 Date:  October 3, 2019 Robert M. Moore, Esq., and Richard O. Wolf, Esq., Moore & Lee, LLP, for the protester. J. Scott Hommer III, Esq., Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., Christopher G. Griesedieck, Esq., and Christina E. Wood, Esq., Venable LLP, for Science Applications International Corporation, the intervenor. D. Randall Kemplin, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency’s cost realism evaluation is denied where the agency reasonably adjusted cost items that the protester failed to adequately substantiate as required by the solicitation. 2.  Protest asserting that agency’s best-value tradeoff decision ignored significant weaknesses in the awardee’s proposal is denied where the evaluation record contradicts the protester’s assertion that the weaknesses in question were found to be significant. DECISION Raytheon Company, located in Indianapolis, Indiana, protests the award of a contract to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), located in Reston, Virginia, by the Department of the Navy under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0016418RWP44, for the overhaul, repair, and material and technical support of subsystems of the MK-99 fire control system.  The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably adjusted Raytheon’s proposed costs for the RFP’s cost-reimbursable line items, improperly failed to conduct discussions, and engaged in a flawed best-value tradeoff analysis that ignored significant weaknesses in SAIC’s proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 17, 2018, the Navy issued the RFP seeking proposals for the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for the overhaul, supplemental repair, parts-kitting, and other technical support services related to the MK-82 directors and AN/SPG-62 reflectors/antenna systems, which are major subsystems of the MK-99 fire control system used for the AEGIS weapon system.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP amend. 3, at 2.  The solicitation included both fixed-price and cost-reimbursable contract line item numbers (CLINs). The RFP contemplated that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering three factors:  technical and management, past performance, and cost/price.  Id. at 35.  The technical and management factor was significantly more important than the past performance factor, and both factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price.  Id.  The solicitation advised that the Navy did not intend to conduct discussions and that the agency might award the contract to a lower-cost  proposal “when the offerors are considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability, or when specific strengths and/or benefits associated with a technically superior offer do not support any associated cost or price premium.”  Id. For the cost-reimbursable CLINs, the RFP anticipated that the Navy would perform an analysis of “the reasonableness, realism and completeness of [each offeror’s] cost/price data, the traceability of the cost/price to the [o]fferor’s capability data, the proposed allocation of man-hours and labor mix, and the proposed [cost/price’s] reflection of the [o]fferor’s understanding of the complexity and risk of the requirements.”  Id. at 40.  The RFP advised offerors that the agency would use the most relevant and reliable data available to evaluate the probable cost of each major cost element.  Id.