NavCom Defense Electronics, Inc., B-276163.3, October 31,

B-276163.3 Oct 31, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency does not abuse its discretion in implementing a recommendation for corrective action by reopening discussions with all offerors whose proposals are in the competitive range and by requesting the submission of another best and final offer from each offeror. Were not reasonable. The agency failed to establish any basis upon which it could reasonably have decided that the awardee's demonstrated performance was. If the awardee was determined to be of other than a low performance risk. The agency is not following our recommendation for corrective action. The agency should simply be reevaluating the awardee's performance and if anything other than a low performance risk rating is assigned to that firm. View Decision Matter of: NavCom Defense Electronics, Inc. File: B-276163.3 Date: October 31, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION NavCom Defense Electronics, Inc. protests the agency's implementation of our recommendation for corrective action as provided in NavCom Defense Elecs., Inc., B-276163, May 19, 1997, 97-1 CPD Para. 189, which involved a procurement for the repair of multiple line items of the AN/ARN-118 TACAN (Tactical Air Navigation) system under request for proposals (RFP) No. F09603-95-R-81729, issued by the Department of the Air Force. We deny the protest. In sustaining NavCom's initial protest, we concluded that the agency's evaluation of the offerors' performance, and the source selection decision based upon that evaluation, were not reasonable. In this regard, the agency evaluated NavCom (which submitted the fourth lowest price) and the awardee (which submitted the lowest price) as each being of low performance risk under the performance evaluation criteria. However, the agency failed to establish any basis upon which it could reasonably have decided that the awardee's demonstrated performance was, in accordance with the terms of the RFP, the "same" as or "similar" to the solicitation requirements. We recommended if the RFP, as drafted, conveyed the agency's needs, that the agency reevaluate the awardee's performance in light of the "same or similar" requirement and document the basis for a particular performance risk rating. If the awardee was determined to be of other than a low performance risk, we recommended that the agency make a performance/price tradeoff in accordance with the terms of the RFP. Depending on the results of that tradeoff, we recommended that the agency either continue the contract with the awardee or terminate the awardee's contract and award to NavCom. If the RFP, as drafted, did not convey the agency's needs, we recommended that the agency amend the RFP and request new best and final offers (BAFO). While the agency states that the RFP conveys its needs and therefore does not require amendment, the agency advises that in implementing our recommendation for corrective action, it has determined to reopen discussions with all seven competitive range offerors (including three offerors which submitted higher prices than NavCom), to reevaluate their performance in light of the RFP's "same" or "similar" requirement, to request a second BAFO from each of these offerors, and to properly document its evaluation and source selection records. NavCom, the incumbent contractor, contends that in reopening discussions and in requesting another round of BAFOs, the agency is not following our recommendation for corrective action. Specifically, NavCom complains that since the RFP reflects the agency's needs, the agency should simply be reevaluating the awardee's performance and if anything other than a low performance risk rating is assigned to that firm, making a performance/price tradeoff between that firm and NavCom. NavCom also contends that the course of action adopted by the agency, in addition to being inconsistent with our recommendation, will result in an impermissible auction. In this regard, NavCom states that based on the notices of award and post-award debriefings, the offerors know their own ranking based on price (and NavCom speculates that they know the rankings of the other offerors) and the awardee's low price. NavCom further complains that offerors can learn what its price was as the incumbent contractor under the predecessor contract with the Air Force and under other agency contracts for the same services because the contract prices are publicly available information. [1] The details of implementing our recommendation for corrective action are within the sound discretion and judgment of the contracting agency. OMNI Int'l Distributors, Inc., 67 Comp.Gen. 123, 124 (1987), 87-2 CPD Para. 563 at 2.