Kratos Defense & Rocket Support Services, Inc. (N6339421R3007)

B-422780 Oct 11, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Kratos Defense & Rocket Support Services, Inc., of San Diego, California, protests the issuance of a task order to Peraton, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6339421R3007, issued by the Department of the Navy, for developmental and long range sub-orbital vehicles. The protester challenges the Navy's decision to eliminate Kratos's proposal from the competition. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Kratos Defense & Rocket Support Services, Inc. File: B-422780 Date: October 11, 2024 Aron C. Beezley, Esq., and Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP; J. Daniel Puckett, Esq., for the protester. Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., and Christopher G. Griesedieck, Jr., Esq., Venable LLP, for Peraton, Inc., the intervenor. Andrea Maglasang-Miller, Esq., Julianne M. Surane, Esq., and Craig D. Haughtelin, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Challenge to the agency’s elimination of the protester’s proposal from the competition is denied where the protester manifested an intent to submit proposal revisions but failed to timely submit portions of its revised proposal. DECISION Kratos Defense & Rocket Support Services, Inc., of San Diego, California, protests the issuance of a task order to Peraton, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6339421R3007, issued by the Department of the Navy, for developmental and long range sub-orbital vehicles.[1] The protester challenges the Navy’s decision to eliminate Kratos’s proposal from the competition. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Navy issued the solicitation on July 16, 2021, under the Navy’s multiple-award SeaPort Next-Generation indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5. AR, exh. 2.6, RFP at 1.[2] The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a single task order, with cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost‑reimbursement contract line items, with a 1‑year base period of performance and four, 1‑year option periods. Id. at 57, 71. Through this procurement the Navy sought developmental and long range sub-orbital vehicles (LSOV) for various customers. Id. at 14. Specifically, the contractor would, among other things: (1) design, develop, manufacture, assemble, integrate and test all LSOV configurations and associated ground test hardware and special test equipment; (2) support government sponsored flight testing; (3) provide analysis for pre-flight integration and testing; (4) provide post-test analysis for vehicle performance to verify that test objectives have been met; and (5) develop, maintain and update technical packages to reflect the different LSOV configurations. Id. The solicitation advised that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering five factors: (1) technical understanding/capability/approach; (2) workforce; (3) management; (4) past performance; and (5) total evaluated cost.[3] Id. at 94 The technical and workforce factors were of equal importance, and individually were more important than management. Id. The technical, workforce, and management factors, when combined were significantly more important than past performance. Id. The non‑cost factors, when combined were significantly more important than cost. Id. The solicitation advised that the importance of cost as an evaluation factor would increase with “the degree of equality in overall technical merit of competing proposals.” Id. The RFP explained that proposals should be submitted in three volumes. Volume one (offer and task order information) concerned administrative submissions; volume two (technical proposal) concerned substantive proposal information, to include (as relevant here) an offeror’s proposal for addressing the management evaluation factor; and volume three was the offeror’s cost proposal. RFP at 73-91. Both Kratos and Peraton submitted proposals by the initial due date of September 15, and the Navy determine both firms’ proposals were within the competitive range. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. The Navy issued amendment 0002 to the RFP on May 10, 2023, which, among other things, opened discussions and provided instructions for offerors who wished to submit initial proposal revisions. Id.; see also AR, exh. 2.1, RFP amend. 0002 at 2; AR, exh. 4.1, Kratos Discussion Letter, May 10, 2023. Following the conclusion of discussions, the protester submitted its initial proposal revisions by the established due date. COS at 2. The Navy opened a second round of discussions on March 19, 2024. COS at 2-3; see AR, exh. 4.2 Kratos Discussion Letter, March 19, 2024.