Textron Systems Corporation (N00024-21-R-6300)

B-420711,B-420711.2 Aug 01, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Textron Systems Corporation, of New Orleans, Louisiana, protests the award of a contract to Bollinger Shipyards Lockport, L.L.C., of Lockport, Louisiana, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-21-R6300, issued by Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for production of mine countermeasures unmanned surface vehicles (MCM USVs). Textron argues that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. 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: Textron Systems Corporation File: B-420711; B-420711.2 Date: August 1, 2022 Amy C. Hoang, Esq., Erica L. Bakies, Esq., and Sarah F. Burgart, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for the protester. Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., Jon W. Burd, Esq., Cara L. Lasley, Esq., and Teresita A. Regelbrugge, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Bollinger Shipyards Lockport, L.L.C., the intervenor. Toya M. McLendon, Esq., Eric M. Carlson, Esq., and Abigail F. Hobby, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protests challenging agency’s technical and cost evaluation are denied where protester has not demonstrated that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable or inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency failed to perform a proper best-value tradeoff and essentially converted the basis for award from tradeoff to lowest-priced, technically acceptable is denied where the record shows that the agency performed a best-value tradeoff that was reasonable and adequately documented. DECISION Textron Systems Corporation, of New Orleans, Louisiana, protests the award of a contract to Bollinger Shipyards Lockport, L.L.C., of Lockport, Louisiana, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-21-R6300, issued by Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for production of mine countermeasures unmanned surface vehicles (MCM USVs). Textron argues that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The MCM USV is a diesel-powered surface craft with a modular payload bay that can be loaded with different payload delivery systems (PDS) for missions like minesweeping and mine neutralization. Agency Report (AR), Encl. 13, Statement of Work (SOW) at 6. The MCM USV is about 39 feet long, with a fully aluminum hull, and relies on twin 55‑horsepower engines to travel approximately 30 miles per hour. Id. The MCM USV is based on an unmanned surface vehicle craft developed by the protester under a contract for the Navy’s Unmanned Influence Sweep System (UISS) program. Id. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. Under that contract, the protester designed and fabricated one engineering development model and the associated technical data package (TDP) for that model. Id. The Navy decided to compete the production effort, and therefore obtained government purpose rights in that TDP. Id. For the production effort, on January 5, 2021, the Navy issued the RFP at issue here. Id. at 1; AR, Encl. 12, RFP at 1, 159.[1] Solicitation No. N00024‑21-R6300, issued pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, sought proposals for production of the MCM USV, the required support equipment, and associated engineering support services. Id. at 1; AR, Encl. 12, RFP at 1, 159. The contractor would produce the craft according to the TDP and specific engineering change proposals (ECPs) included within the solicitation. RFP at 2; AR, Encl. 13, SOW at 6. The RFP contemplated the award of a single contract with a base and four option fixed-price-type contract line item numbers (CLINs) for MCM USV production, a base and five option cost-type CLINs for engineering services, a provisioned item ordering CLIN, and an option for data rights. RFP at 20‑21, 56, 108. The solicitation provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors: (1) focused technical approach (technical); (2) data rights approach; (3) general management & production approach (management); (4) past performance; and (5) total evaluated cost/price (cost). Id. at 161. The management factor and past performance factor were to be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis; a rating of unacceptable for either factor would render a proposal ineligible for award. Id. at 161-62. The technical factor and data rights approach factor were to be evaluated using adjectival ratings.[2] Id. When combined, the technical and data rights factors were significantly more important than cost.