Raytheon Company

B-417935,B-417935.2,B-417935.3 Dec 13, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Raytheon Company, of Portsmouth, Rhode Island, protests the award of a contract to Lockheed Martin Corporation, of Moorestown, New Jersey, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-17-R-5152, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for a ship self-defense system (SSDS) to develop, integrate, and maintain a combat management system for aircraft carriers, large deck amphibious ships, and future surface ship classes. The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated technical and cost 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 Company File:  B-417935; B-417935.2; B-417935.3 Date:   December 13, 2019 Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Kelly Buroker, Esq., Kirsten Konar, Esq., and Tamara Droubi, Esq., Vedder Price PC, for the protester. Marcia G. Madsen, Esq., David F. Dowd, Esq., Luke Levasseur, Esq., Mayer Brown LLP, for Lockheed Martin Corporation, the intervenor. Per David Midboe, Esq., J. Gregory Lennon, Esq., Kelsey A. Harrer, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of proposals and source selection decision is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation and selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Raytheon Company, of Portsmouth, Rhode Island, protests the award of a contract to Lockheed Martin Corporation, of Moorestown, New Jersey, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-17-R-5152, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for a ship self-defense system (SSDS) to develop, integrate, and maintain a combat management system for aircraft carriers, large deck amphibious ships, and future surface ship classes.  The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated technical and cost proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on August 4, 2017, using procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, contemplated the award of a single contract with cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF), CPIF level-of-effort (LOE), and fixed-price contract line item numbers (CLINs) for a period of performance not to exceed 10 years.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP at 1, 290, 379.  The CPIF completion CLINs required a contractor to develop and deliver Advanced Capability Build (ACB) 20,[2]a software upgrade that integrates three new Navy weapon systems into SSDS, as well as other improvements, such as cybersecurity and training.  Id. at 74; COS at 3.  Id.  The completion CLINs also required the awardee to modify ACB 20 software to make it compatible with other hardware technology insertions (HTI) hardware.[3]  COS at 3.  CPIF LOE effort CLINs included engineering support of existing baseline software modifications and placeholder CLINs would establish the rates for other future capability development efforts.  RFP at 75. Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering five evaluation factors: technical approach, data rights, management approach, past performance, and total evaluated cost/price (TEC/P).  Id. at 391-92, 399.  In evaluating proposals, the technical approach and data rights factors would be considered equally important and would be assigned an adjectival rating[4]; the management approach and past performance factors would be rated as either acceptable or unacceptable.  Id. at 392.  The RFP stated that all non-cost/price factors when combined would be significantly more important than the TEC/P factor.  Id.  The RFP also advised that as competing proposals approached parity in the non-cost/price factors, TEC/P would increase in importance.  Id.  The solicitation declared that the government may select a lower-cost, lower-rated proposal if the government determined that the premium associated with the higher-rated proposal was not justified.  Id.