Northrop Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc.--Reconsideration

B-262181.3 Jun 04, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Request for reconsideration of decision denying protest on ground that protester was not prejudiced by agency's failure to hold meaningful discussions is denied where the record showed that there was no reasonable possibility that protester was prejudiced. Protester's attempt in request for reconsideration to demonstrate prejudice provides no basis for reconsidering decision given that protester had available to it during the course of the initial protest information that would have allowed it to present specific and credible support for its position. Proposals were evaluated with respect to technical merit. The technical merit factor and its subfactors were evaluated using both color/adjectival ratings and proposal risk ratings. View Decision Matter of: Northrop Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc.--Reconsideration File: B-262181.3 Date: June 4, 1996 Request for reconsideration of decision denying protest on ground that protester was not prejudiced by agency's failure to hold meaningful discussions is denied where the record showed that there was no reasonable possibility that protester was prejudiced; protester's attempt in request for reconsideration to demonstrate prejudice provides no basis for reconsidering decision given that protester had available to it during the course of the initial protest information that would have allowed it to present specific and credible support for its position, but failed to do so. Attorneys DECISION Northrop Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc. requests reconsideration of our decision in Northrop Worldwide Aircraft Servs., Inc., B-262181, Oct. 27, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 196, denying its protest of 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 at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. We deny the request for reconsideration. Proposals were evaluated with respect to technical merit, current and past performance, and cost, listed in descending order of importance. The technical merit factor and its subfactors were evaluated using both color/adjectival ratings and proposal risk ratings. The color/adjectival ratings represented 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 represented the risks associated with each proposal. [1] Offerors' current and past performance proposals were evaluated using these same color/adjectival ratings, as well as performance risk ratings of high, moderate, low, or not applicable. Cost proposals were evaluated for realism and reasonableness. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. The evaluation of the best and final offers (BAFO) of Loral and Northrop yielded the following results: Loral Northrop Evaluated Cost $85.8 million $69.7 million The source selection authority (SSA) determined that, while Northrop offered the lowest cost with an acceptable technical approach, its "aggressive manning posture" presented a risk to schedule, cost and performance, especially in the two most important technical areas of operations and maintenance. Further, while Northrop had an acceptable performance history, it posed a moderate risk to schedule, cost and management. The SSA stated that, given its aggressive manning, Northrop might require significant, serious intervention in terms of money and management oversight. The SSA concluded that Northrop's lower cost was not worth the high proposal risk and moderate performance risk, [2] and that Loral's proposal represented the best value to the government. In its protest, Northrop argued that the Air Force improperly failed to discuss with the firm the concerns over its "aggressive manning posture" which led to its high risk technical merit rating. We agreed. The record showed that Northrop's proposal was downgraded under the risk element of the operations and maintenance subfactors for its "aggressive manning posture"--or low staffing levels--and that this criticism was a significant factor in the selection decision. We concluded, however, that Northrop was not prejudiced by the Air Force's failure to raise these issues with the firm. Northrop's request for reconsideration disagrees with this conclusion. Specifically, Northrop argues that we failed to apply the presumption of prejudice that follows from a finding of inadequate discussions, and that the record establishes that there was a reasonable possibility that its proposal's technical rating would have improved had adequate discussions been held. Competitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest. Lithos Restoration, Ltd., 71 Comp.Gen.