ECC International Corporation, B-277422, B-277422.2, October

ECC International Corporation, B-277422, B-277422.2, October BNUMBER: B-277422, B-277422.2 DATE: October 14, 1997 TITLE: ECC International Corporation, B-277422, B-277422.2, October 14, 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:ECC International Corporation File: B-277422, B-277422.2 Date:October 14, 1997 Melvin Rishe, Esq., Howard J. Stanislawski, Esq., and Richard L. Larach, Esq., Sidley & Austin, for the protester. Thomas J. Madden, Esq., Jerome S. Gabig, Esq., and Johana A. Reed, Esq., Venable Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, LLP, for AAI Corporation, an intervenor. Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., and Gregory D. Whitt, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the Agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's assignment of risk assessment ratings is denied where record shows that there was a reasonable basis for the agency's conclusions that protester's proposal presented a high risk of unsuccessful performance in one technical area and that awardee's proposal presented only a moderate cost risk. DECISION ECC International Corporation protests the award of a contract to AAI Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. F33657-97-R-2009, issued by the Department of the Air Force for concurrency upgrades and logistics support of the agency's C-17 aircraft maintenance training devices. ECC maintains that the Air Force misevaluated proposals in the area of past performance and made an irrational cost/technical tradeoff in awarding the contract to AAI. ECC also maintains that the evaluation reflects bias on the part of the agency against ECC. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a combination cost reimbursement/firm, fixed-price contract on a best value basis to perform modifications to two suites of C-17 aircraft maintenance training devices (MTD), as well as ongoing logistics support and the conduct of a maintenance training analysis study for the C-17 MTD program. The modifications portion of the contract, the largest dollar item being procured, is to be performed on a cost reimbursement basis, while the logistics support and maintenance training analysis study are to be performed on a firm, fixed-price basis. The MTDs are used to train agency personnel in various aspects of C-17 aircraft maintenance. The modifications are necessary in order to make the configuration of the C-17 MTDs "concurrent" with, or identical to, the configuration of presently fielded aircraft; design and engineering changes to the aircraft since the time the C-17 MTDs were originally built have necessitated the current requirement. The RFP advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated for cost realism, reasonableness, and completeness, as well as for technical adequacy under three primary technical criteria (none of which is at issue in this protest), and that a proposal risk rating would also be assigned in each of the technical evaluation areas. In addition, the RFP advised that firms would be evaluated by a performance risk assessment group (PRAG) for past performance based on information supplied with the proposals, as well as information obtained independently by the agency. In response to the solicitation, the Air Force received five initial offers. After evaluating the offers and conducting a performance risk assessment, the agency determined that it was in the best interest of the government to make award based on initial offers. ECC's and AAI's proposals received comparable technical and proposal risk scores, and ECC's evaluated cost was low. The Air Force nonetheless made award to AAI, the firm offering the second lowest evaluated cost, based largely on the conclusion of the PRAG that AAI presented a lower performance risk than ECC. The agency's performance risk evaluation is the focus of ECC's protest. The PRAG conducted its evaluation by reviewing each offeror's performance under the three technical evaluation areas: Concurrency Approach/Implementation, Maintenance Training Analysis, and Contractor Logistics Support. Risk ratings also were assigned for Cost/Price. Ratings of low, moderate, or high risk were assigned under each of the four areas unless the agency concluded that there was insufficient information to evaluate a firm in a given area, in which case the PRAG assigned a rating of not applicable.