BNUMBER:  B-261154.4
DATE:  October 16, 1995
TITLE:  AT&T Corporation, Advanced Technology Systems

**********************************************************************

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:AT&T Corporation, Advanced Technology Systems

File:     B-261154.4

Date:October 16, 1995

C. Stanley Dees, Esq., Daniel G. Jarcho, Esq., and Patrick K. O'Keefe, 
Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for the protester.
Paul Shnitzer, Esq., and David Z. Bodenheimer, Esq., Crowell & Moring, 
for Loral Federal Systems, an interested party.
Robert D. Hogue, Esq., Debra B. Haworth, Esq., and  Stephanie Buser, 
Esq., Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, for the agency.
David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest against source selection is denied where (1) agency reasonably 
determined that awardee had proposed a fundamentally less complex 
approach to deploying an underseas surveillance system which was more 
likely to successfully and timely deploy a survivable underwater 
segment than was the protester's, and (2) the record provides no basis 
for concluding that the awardee's contract cost was likely to be so 
substantially higher than the protester's as to offset the awardee's 
superiority under the substantially more important technical factors.

DECISION

AT&T Corporation, Advanced Technology Systems, protests the award of a 
contract to Loral Federal Systems under request for proposals (RFP) 
No. N00039-94-R-0020, issued by Department of the Navy, Space and 
Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), for the 
demonstration/validation (DEM/VAL) phase of an underseas surveillance 
system.  AT&T challenges the evaluation of cost and technical 
proposals.[1]

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract to 
design, develop, document, fabricate, assemble, inspect, integrate, 
and support the development of a DEM/VAL phase prototype of the 
Advanced Deployable System (ADS), a passive underseas surveillance 
system providing tactical warfare information to commanders in 
littoral (shallow) water areas.  The solicitation required offerors to 
submit a technical proposal and system design documentation package 
which:

        "in combination shall be sufficiently specific, detailed, and 
        complete so as to clearly and fully demonstrate to the 
        Government that the prospective offeror has a thorough 
        understanding of the requirements for and problems inherent in 
        performing, as well as the capability to perform the 
        Demonstration and Validation Phase and delivery of  ADS."  

The solicitation further required offerors to submit cost proposals 
which explained:

        "in whatever detail is required to demonstrate cost 
        reasonableness and supportability, the methodology used to 
        estimate each element of cost (e.g., labor, material, etc.).  
        Enough data shall be provided so that an independent cost 
        analysis verification can be performed."

In this regard, offerors were required to submit their cost estimates 
using a work breakdown structure (WBS) furnished with the solicitation 
and to provide:

        "[a]dequate information . . . to allow Government evaluation 
        of proposed labor hours, material costs, subcontractor costs, 
        other direct costs and related overhead costs by the fourth 
        level of the WBS.  Major subcontractor estimates (i.e., 
        exceeding Five Million Dollars ($5M)) shall be submitted using 
        the same formats and degree of rationale."     

The solicitation generally provided for award to be made to the 
offeror whose proposal is "considered most likely to satisfy the 
requirements of the government and to be in the best interest of the 
Government, cost and other factors considered."  The RFP provided for 
the evaluation of proposals on the basis of the following four 
specific evaluation factors (in descending order of importance):    
(1) overall system design/development and (2) prototype development, 
implementation and demonstration, which were "substantially more 
important than" (3) management and (4) cost.  Cost proposals were to 
be evaluated for (1) contract cost affordability/reasonableness and 
(2) life-cycle cost.  With respect to the proposed contract costs, the 
RFP stated that:  

        "[t]he Government will conduct its own evaluation of these 
        costs and the associated ranges, and will rely on this 
        evaluation when determining the award. The Government's cost 
        evaluation will be affected by the quality of the supporting 
        data provided and on the basis of traceability of the proposed 
        costs to the technical/management proposal, as well as the 
        offeror's demonstrated ability to deliver large, technically 
        complex development programs within budget.  The primary 
        purpose of this criterion is to determine if the cost proposal 
        for the prototype development, demonstration/validation is 
        complete, realistic and reasonable."

The RFP likewise provided for the government to conduct its own 
evaluation of the proposed life-cycle costs for use in selecting a 
proposal for award.

Four proposals were received by the closing time.  The proposals 
submitted by Loral and AT&T were based on [DELETED]; two other 
proposals were based, entirely or primarily, on [DELETED].  Subsequent 
to the receipt of initial proposals, SPAWAR amended the solicitation 
to delete provisions for potential installation by air drop.  Offerors 
were requested to submit updated proposals, but were not afforded the 
opportunity for discussions.  

Since an autonomous architecture was not achievable in time for 
prototype demonstration, resulting in both of the proposals that 
emphasized an autonomous approach receiving an overall "below 
adequate" rating under the technical factors, and the life-cycle costs 
of the autonomous approach were expected to be substantially higher 
than those for the cabled approach, the source selection decision 
focused on the cable-connected proposals submitted by Loral and AT&T.  
The evaluation results are shown below.

                     AT&T                 Loral

TECHNICAL                                 

   System Design     Adequate             Above Adequate

   Prototype                          DemonstrationBelow 
                                          AdequateAdequate

   Management        Below Adequate       Adequate

   Overall Technical Adequate             Above Adequate

COST                                      

   Proposed DEM/VAL  $30.5 million        $42.4 million

   Evaluated DEM/VAL $30.5-62.6 million   $42.4-56.2 million

   Evaluated Life-Cycle$[DELETED] million $[DELETED] million          
The record establishes that cost considerations were secondary in the 
source selection decision.  As noted above, cost and management were 
"substantially" less important than the system design and prototype 
demonstration evaluation factors.  Further, although the evaluated 
life-cycle cost of AT&T's approach, as determined by application of a 
parametric cost model, was slightly higher than Loral's, the source 
selection advisory council (SSAC) evaluated the life-cycle costs of 
the two proposals as being "virtually the same" and concluded that 
they "provide[d] no conclusive basis for selection of one over the 
other."

Offerors' proposed DEM/VAL costs were not determinative because the 
cost evaluation team (CET) found the task of developing an independent 
estimate of the most probable cost of each offeror's DEM/VAL approach 
to be "extremely difficult."  The CET concluded that the proposals 
lacked sufficient detail to permit it to undertake the detailed, 
"bottoms-up" cost realism analysis recommended in the Navy's Cost 
Realism Handbook and traditionally used at SPAWAR--that is, a detailed 
build-up of contract cost from the lowest WBS levels based on a 
detailed review of proposed labor and hardware costs.  In this regard, 
although the solicitation generally required offerors to submit cost 
proposals which included "whatever detail is required to demonstrate 
cost reasonableness and . . . the methodology used to estimate each 
element of cost . . . so that an independent cost analysis 
verification can be performed," and specifically extended the 
obligation to furnish detailed WBS costs and an explanation of the 
underlying cost methodology to major subcontractors, AT&T failed to 
furnish a cost proposal for a subcontractor accounting for [DELETED] 
percent of its proposed cost.  (In addition, the source selection 
evaluation board found that AT&T had proposed inadequate staffing 
levels to support its technical approach.)  As for Loral's proposal, 
the CET expressed concern that the cost proposal of its principal 
subcontractor was based only on "engineering judgment" and that no 
historical data supported the subcontractor's proposed efficiency and 
learning curves.  Since the CET was unable to develop independent 
estimates of offerors' DEM/VAL costs, the panel recommended that 
SPAWAR open discussions with offerors to acquire detailed cost backup 
data.

Instead of commencing discussions, however, SPAWAR determined that 
DEM/VAL phase cost realism could be evaluated by using the parametric 
cost model used to develop the life-cycle cost estimates, as modified 
to take into account certain proposal-unique information and eliminate 
costs associated with the engineering and manufacturing development 
(EMD) and production phases.  Although the CET had found there were 
"serious weaknesses inherent in the model . . . which . . . prevent it 
from calculating other than rough approximations of 
contractor-specific [DEM/VAL] cost estimates," the SSAC concluded that 
the parametric cost model contained sufficient 
proposal-and-item-unique cost drivers to permit its use to define the 
upper limit of the cost estimate, with the lower limit of the range 
consisting of the offerors' proposed costs.[2]

Viewing the wide range between AT&T's proposed cost ($30.5 million) 
and the cost derived from the modified parametric cost model ($62.6 
million) as calling into question the reliability of AT&T's cost data, 
and given AT&T's failure to furnish a cost proposal for its [DELETED] 
subcontractor and its proposal of inadequate staffing to support its 
proposed technical approach, the SSAC determined that AT&T's proposal 
was not well supported.  Noting also that a "negative 25 % cost 
variance"--cost overrun--had occurred with respect to AT&T's 
performance on the underwater segment of another underseas 
surveillance system, the recent program most like the ADS program, the 
SSAC found AT&T's cost proposal to be characterized by "substantial 
cost risk."

In contrast, the SSAC concluded that while "it may have been 
optimistic, Loral's [cost] proposal is not considered unrealistic, and 
is more realistic than AT&T['s]."   The panel based its conclusion on 
the fact that:  (1) the range between Loral's proposed cost ($42.4 
million) and the cost derived from the modified parametric cost model 
($56.2 million) was considerably narrower than the range for the AT&T 
proposal, supporting the conclusion that Loral's proposed costs were 
more realistic; (2) a review of proposed labor hours by WBS element 
indicated that Loral's proposed staffing was adequate to support its 
technical approach; (3) its subcontractor had supported its proposed 
cost down to the seventh WBS level, attempted to account for known 
technical risks in terms of potential additional labor hours, and 
added [DELETED] percent to its own vendor cost inputs; (4) the 
proposed direct and indirect rates were reasonable; and (5) only an 
approximately 10 percent cost overrun had occurred with respect to 
Loral's performance on the contract for the shore processing segment 
of the previous underseas surveillance system contract.  
Notwithstanding its ultimate determination that Loral's cost proposal 
was "realistic and reasonable," and not characterized by the 
substantial cost risk associated with AT&T's proposal, the SSAC 
ultimately concluded that it "would not expect costs for AT&T and 
Loral to differ significantly at the end of DEM/VAL."

The evaluated technical superiority of Loral's approach was 
determinative in the source selection.  The SSAC report noted that 
"[s]urvivability is the primary risk of the [DELETED] architectures.  
Deployment of the [DELETED] architectures is an aspect of the 
survivability risk . . . ."   Likewise, according to the SSAC 
co-chairman (and program manager), "[d]eployment is everything in 
ADS." 

[DELETED]

SPAWAR evaluated AT&T's [DELETED] approach to [DELETED] as an overly 
complex, high risk approach which conferred little or no added, real 
benefit to the deployment process and would be unable to deploy at the 
full range of speeds necessary to meet the ADS deployment time 
requirements.  Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 53-54, 108-109, 157-158.  

[DELETED]

The lead evaluator (and agency expert) in this area reported to the 
SSAC that the AT&T deployment approach was "not a suitable method for 
installing ADS [DELETED] systems."  The SSAC determined that "[t]he 
Loral approach is judged to be of lower technical risk than AT&T['s] 
to successfully deploy a survivable underwater segment.  This is due 
to the simplicity of the Loral deployment approach compared to the 
method proposed by AT&T."  Further, noting that cost "estimates at 
this stage of development are inherently uncertain due to technical 
risk," and concluding that discussions were unlikely to result in 
further useful information, the SSAC recommended against commencing 
discussions.  The SSAC instead recommended award to Loral, explaining 
that:

        "[g]iven the technical superiority of Loral, its reasonable 
        and affordable [life-cycle cost] evaluation (which is 
        virtually the same as AT&T), and its sufficiently realistic 
        (and more realistic than AT&T) DEM/VAL offer, discussions 
        would add little value to the selection.

        "Despite the proposed cost difference, the SSAC would not 
        expect costs for AT&T and Loral to differ significantly at the 
        end of DEM/VAL.  And even if AT&T were to cost $10 M[illion] 
        less than Loral, as proposed, the latter's technical 
        superiority, short term cost reasonableness and affordability, 
        and long term cost effectiveness approximately equal to AT&T, 
        make it the best value to the Government."

The source selection authority accepted the SSAC's recommendation and 
made award to Loral without discussions.  AT&T thereupon filed this 
protest with our Office.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION

Although AT&T raises a number of arguments challenging the technical 
evaluation, the reasonableness of SPAWAR's overall conclusion that 
Loral submitted a technically superior proposal depends on the 
reasonableness of the agency's fundamental technical determination 
that Loral's less complex deployment approach was more likely to 
successfully and timely deploy a survivable ADS underwater segment 
than was AT&T's.  We find the agency's determination in this regard 
reasonable. 

Deployment Speed

AT&T challenges SPAWAR's determination that the deployment speed of 
its proposed [DELETED] would be inadequate.  [DELETED]

As an initial matter, to the extent that the agency allegedly failed 
to fully appreciate AT&T's intent in this area, the responsibility 
must rest largely with AT&T for failing to submit an adequately, 
clearly written proposal.  The solicitation required offerors to 
submit proposals which were:

        "sufficiently specific, detailed, and complete so as to 
        clearly and fully demonstrate to the Government that the 
        prospective offeror has a thorough understanding of the 
        requirements for and problems inherent in performing, as well 
        as the capability to perform the Demonstration and Validation 
        Phase and delivery of  ADS."

As noted by the agency, AT&T's proposal did not describe in any detail 
its intended [DELETED]

Complexity

Even if AT&T's [DELETED] were to prove capable of deploying at speeds 
of interest for ADS, the record supports the agency's position that 
AT&T's approach would be more complex than Loral's [DELETED] approach, 
without adding any appreciable compensating benefit.  Further, AT&T 
has furnished no basis for questioning SPAWAR's position that a less 
complex approach that satisfies the agency's needs is to be preferred.  
[DELETED]

It is clear from the record that the agency viewed the lesser 
complexity of Loral's deployment approach as significantly enhancing 
the likelihood of successful deployment of ADS.

We find that SPAWAR reasonably determined that Loral submitted a 
technically superior proposal which offered a fundamentally less 
complex deployment approach that was more likely to successfully and 
timely deploy a survivable ADS underwater segment than AT&T's.  

COST EVALUATION

AT&T challenges SPAWAR's cost evaluation primarily on the basis that 
the agency failed to prepare independent estimates of the likely 
actual cost of DEM/VAL performance based on the approach proposed by 
each offeror.   

As a general rule, agencies are required to include cost or price as a 
significant factor in the evaluation of proposals.  Competition in 
Contracting Act (CICA),       10 U.S.C.  sec.  2305(a)(2)(A)(i) (1994); 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)    sec.  15.605(b).  An evaluation and 
source selection which fails to give significant consideration to 
cost, or which varies from the RFP's cost evaluation provisions, is 
inconsistent with CICA and cannot serve as the basis for a reasonable 
source selection decision.  See Lockheed, IMS, B-248686, Sept. 15, 
1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  180.  Further, when a cost reimbursement contract is 
to be awarded, the offerors' estimated costs of contract performance 
should not be considered as controlling since the estimates may not 
provide valid indications of the final contract costs which the 
government is required to pay.  See FAR  sec.  15.605(d).  Consequently, 
the contracting agency must perform a cost realism analysis to 
determine the realism of an offeror's proposed costs and to determine 
what the costs are likely to be under the offeror's technical 
approach, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency.  CACI, 
Inc.-Fed., 64 Comp. Gen. 71 (1984), 84-2 CPD  para.  542; GTE Gov't Sys. 
Corp., B-260022; B-260022.2, May 16, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  245. 

SPAWAR's cost evaluation approach resulted in the calculation for 
AT&T's proposal of only a broad range--from $30.5-$62.6 million--of 
possible cost of DEM/VAL performance.  However, SPAWAR's failure to 
more accurately measure the most probable cost of AT&T's proposal does 
not warrant sustaining AT&T's protest in this regard, since this 
failure was largely the result of AT&T's failure to submit an 
adequately supported cost proposal, in particular, [DELETED] 
"[a]dequate information . . . to allow Government evaluation of 
proposed labor hours, material costs, subcontractor costs, other 
direct costs and related overhead costs by the fourth level of the 
WBS," so that "an independent cost analysis verification can be 
performed."    
    
Further, given the agency's inability to calculate a specific most 
probable DEM/VAL cost for AT&T's proposal (as a result of AT&T's 
failure to submit an adequately written cost proposal), there was no 
specific AT&T most probable cost with which to compare a  specific 
Loral most probable cost.  Moreover, the SSAC generally concluded that 
Loral's relatively detailed DEM/VAL cost proposal was not unrealistic.  
AT&T has not shown that Loral's cost proposal omitted any probable 
costs of DEM/VAL performance which were so significant as to affect 
the reasonableness of the source selection decision.  As discussed 
above, it is clear from the record that any uncertainties with respect 
to cost were not significant in the source selection decision since 
the agency was primarily concerned with successful and timely 
deployment of a survivable ADS underwater segment.

CONCLUSION

Since SPAWAR reasonably determined that Loral submitted a technically 
superior proposal, the proposed approaches of AT&T and Loral also 
entailed approximately equal life-cycle costs, and the record provides 
no basis for concluding that Loral's DEM/VAL cost was likely to be so 
substantially higher than AT&T's as to offset Loral's superiority 
under the substantially more important technical factors, we find the 
selection of Loral unobjectionable.[3]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Inasmuch as portions of the record are classified, the following 
unclassified discussion is necessarily somewhat general with respect 
to several aspects of the procurement.

2. The CET noted that the parametric cost model was based on a 
database that did not separate DEM/VAL and EMD costs and assumed the 
use of less commercial-off-the-shelf/nondevelopmental items (COTS/NDI) 
than proposed for ADS.  According to SPAWAR,  however, the limitation 
with respect to COTS/NDI did not prejudice AT&T, since AT&T and Loral 
reportedly proposed approximately the same level of COTS/NDI when 
common definitions are used. 

3. AT&T contends that SPAWAR should have conducted discussions in 
order to calculate a most probable cost for each proposal and 
otherwise resolve uncertainties in the proposals.  Again, however, the 
agency had substantial cost information, and given that this 
information reasonably indicated that any cost differences would not 
affect the award decision--which was driven primarily by technical 
concerns--discussions (in lieu of award based on revised initial 
proposals) were not required.