Boeing Sikorsky Aircraft Support, B-277263.2; B-277263.3,

Boeing Sikorsky Aircraft Support, B-277263.2; B-277263.3, BNUMBER: B-277263.2; B-277263.3 DATE: September 29, 1997 TITLE: Boeing Sikorsky Aircraft Support, B-277263.2; B-277263.3, September 29, 1997 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:Boeing Sikorsky Aircraft Support File: B-277263.2; B-277263.3 Date:September 29, 1997 Cyrus E. Phillips IV, Esq., William H. Butterfield, Esq., and Christopher H. Jensen, Esq., Kilcullen, Wilson & Kilcullen, and Mark W. Reardon, Esq., The Boeing Corporation, for the protester. Gerard F. Doyle, Esq., Ron R. Hutchinson, Esq., and Michael F. Mason, Esq., Doyle & Bachman, for Raytheon E-Systems, an intervenor. Christopher E. Kernan, Esq., Maj. Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., and Col. Nicholas P. Retson, Department of the Army, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Past performance risk evaluation is unobjectionable where agency follows evaluation criteria stated in solicitation and conduct of evaluation is reasonable. 2. Cost evaluation of award fee is unobjectionable where agency reasonably concluded that offeror's proposed fee structure provided limited incentive for superior performance. 3. Agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions where, as the result of an attribution methodology in the protester's proposal which the agency found unacceptable, but failed to address during discussions, the agency treated as omitted and erroneously added into its cost evaluation a significant number of direct labor hours which were actually provided in the protester's proposal. 4. Agency's source selection analysis was defective where it addressed cost only in terms of risk without considering proposals' relative evaluated cost. 5. Agency's post-protest award determination reassessment does not establish that protester was not prejudiced by discussion and evaluation errors where the agency continues to take the position that relative evaluated cost need not be weighed and fails to take into consideration the relative cost differential in the areas over which the offerors exercised any control. DECISION Boeing Sikorsky Aircraft Support (BSAS) protests the award of a contract to Raytheon E-Systems under request for proposals (RFP) No. USZA22-97-R-0001, issued by the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM). BSAS alleges that it was not afforded meaningful discussions and challenges the propriety of various aspects of the technical and cost evaluations and the award determination. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND SOCOM is a unified and joint command responsible for missions such as unconventional warfare, special reconnaissance, and counter-terrorism. SOCOM operates an industrial-type support activity which provides dedicated, highly-responsive logistics support for special operations forces (SOF) worldwide. The special operations forces support activity (SOFSA) is a government-owned, contractor-operated facility located primarily in Lexington and Richmond, Kentucky. The SOFSA provides logistics support for the SOF, and this support is tailored to the changing and joint nature of the force's missions. This logistics support includes equipment repair and modification, prototype and low volume manufacturing, maintenance management, life-cycle support, and equipment sustainment. This solicitation, which sought proposals for the operation and maintenance of the SOFSA, was written to allow offerors as much latitude as possible to propose innovative ways of doing business and to employ creative problem-solving. The RFP was designed to test the offerors' understanding of both the SOF requirements and the "statement of objectives [SOO] to statement of work [SOW]" process. This latter process asks the offerors to take an extremely general SOO provided with a minimum of detail and translate that into a contractor's SOW outlining performance requirements, performance periods, and estimated costs. An offeror's ability to make this translation in as detailed and accurate a manner as possible was deemed critical to the operation of the SOFSA. Since the agency anticipates issuance of approximately 500 to 700 SOOs annually, it is critical that the support contractor's SOW and cost estimate be usable as initially presented with little or no negotiation required. To this end, the evaluation was designed to measure the offerors' understanding of the process and ability to deliver a quality product. The RFP contemplated award of a cost-plus-award fee, task order contract for a base year with four 1-year options.