Northrop Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc.

B-262181 Oct 27, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights There is no reasonable possibility that the protester was prejudiced by this impropriety because discussions could have improved only the technical rating of the protester's proposal to the level of the awardee's. Would not have affected its inferior current and past performance rating. Which was pivotal in the award decision. These services will ensure successful simulation of combat scenarios for aircrew training. The contract will be performed over 1 base year and up to 4 option years. Offerors were advised that proposals would be evaluated pursuant to Air Force streamlined source selection procedures. That award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. View Decision Matter of: Northrop Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc. File: B-262181 Date: October 27, 1995 While contracting agency improperly failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the protester when it rated its acceptable technical proposal as having a high proposal risk for several weaknesses related to manning, but did not inform it of the agency's concerns regarding those weaknesses, there is no reasonable possibility that the protester was prejudiced by this impropriety because discussions could have improved only the technical rating of the protester's proposal to the level of the awardee's, but would not have affected its inferior current and past performance rating, which was pivotal in the award decision. Attorneys DECISION Northrop Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Loral Training and Technical Services under request for proposals (RFP) No. F26600-94-R-0172, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the operation and maintenance of electronic threats and targets on the U.S. Air Force Weapons and Tactics Center Range Complex (WTCRC) at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. Northrop argues that the Air Force improperly failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the firm. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued December 17, 1994, anticipated award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract under which the successful offeror would provide all of the management and labor to operate and maintain the range systems and equipment located on the WTCRC and other locations. These services will ensure successful simulation of combat scenarios for aircrew training, evaluation of aircrews' responses to electronic threats, and transmission of electronic data for video debriefings. The contract will be performed over 1 base year and up to 4 option years. Offerors were advised that proposals would be evaluated pursuant to Air Force streamlined source selection procedures, and that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. Proposals would be evaluated under three categories, in descending order of importance: technical merit, current and past performance, and cost. The technical merit factor consisted of five subfactors, in descending order of importance: operations, maintenance, management, logistics, and technical innovation. The operations subfactor, at issue here, contained seven areas for review, among them: uprange operations, Red Forces, Blackjack, training and standardization-evaluation, and aircraft instrumentation subsystem (AIS) pod shop operation. [1] The technical merit factor and its components would be evaluated using both color/adjectival ratings and proposal risk ratings. The color/adjectival ratings--blue/exceptional, green/acceptable, yellow/marginal, or red/unacceptable--would represent the evaluators' views as to an offeror's understanding of and compliance with the requirements, as well as the soundness of its approach. The proposal risk ratings--high, moderate, or low--would represent the risks associated with each proposal. Offerors' current and past performance proposals would be evaluated using the color/adjectival ratings described above, as well as performance risk ratings of high, moderate, low, or not applicable. Cost proposals would be evaluated for realism and reasonableness. The Air Force received five proposals by the February 17, 1995 closing date, including those from Northrop and Loral, the incumbent contractor. During the evaluation of these proposals, the technical evaluation team (TET) sent Northrop a clarification request for the zip codes of government personnel cited in its current and past performance proposal. Three days later, the TET realized that offerors were confused as to the range operating hours listed in the RFP, and decided to clarify these hours by issuing an amendment. The TET submitted its initial technical evaluation report on March 14, and issued amendment No.