Lear Siegler Services, Inc., B-280834; B-280834.2, November

Lear Siegler Services, Inc., B-280834; B-280834.2, November BNUMBER: B-280834; B-280834.2 DATE: November 25, 1998 TITLE: Lear Siegler Services, Inc., B-280834; B-280834.2, November 25, 1998 ********************************************************************** 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:Lear Siegler Services, Inc. File: B-280834; B-280834.2 Date:November 25, 1998 Harvey G. Sherzer, Esq., Lee P. Curtis, Esq., Allen Cannon, III, Esq., and Douglas S. Manya, Esq., Howrey & Simon, for the protester. Cyrus E. Phillips, IV, Esq., William H. Butterfield, Esq., and Christopher H. Jensen, Esq., Kilcullen, Wilson and Kilcullen, for Sikorsky Support Services, Inc., an intervenor. Ellen Washington, Esq., and J. Cole Cartledge, Esq., Naval Air Systems Command, Department of the Navy, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protester's contention that inconsistencies in the ratings definitions found in the source selection plan resulted in an unreasonable evaluation is denied where the record shows that the evaluators performed a reasonable assessment of proposals in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation plan. 2. Allegation that agency held inadequate discussions because it did not advise the protester that its price was considered high is denied where the record shows that the protester's initial price was, in fact, within the middle range of prices, and even as revised, was not so much higher than the prices of other offerors to require advising the protester of this fact. 3. Protest that agency's evaluation of past performance failed to consider the relevance of an offeror's experience is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluators considered the awardee's lack of relevant experience and reflected it in the assigned rating. Although the record is less clear about whether the agency considered the relevance of the protester's experience (protester was the incumbent for these services for the previous 10 years), the agency reasonably rated the protester's experience as satisfactory, given the protester's problems in performing these services during the predecessor contract. 4. Contention that agency performed a flawed price analysis by failing to consider whether the awardee planned to provide the fringe benefits required under the applicable collective bargaining agreements and wage determinations, thus permitting the awardee a competitive advantage, is denied where the record does not indicate that the awardee will not comply with the required compensation levels, and where the agency's price analysis was otherwise reasonable. 5. Protester's contention that agency failed to perform an appropriate price/technical tradeoff between its proposal and the proposal of the awardee is denied where the record shows that the protester was not prejudiced by any failure in this regard because the protester was not next in line for award. Instead, a tradeoff was made between the awardee's lower-rated, lower-priced proposal, and another offeror's proposal that was rated higher, but priced lower, than the protester's proposal. DECISION Lear Siegler Services, Inc. (LSI) protests the award of a contract to Sikorsky Support Services, Inc., by the Department of the Navy pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. N00019-97-R-0030, issued for maintenance of fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft at Naval Air Stations in Meridian, Mississippi; Pensacola, Florida; and Corpus Christi, Texas. LSI argues that the Navy's method of evaluating proposals was irrational; that the agency failed to hold meaningful discussions; that the agency's assessment of past performance and its price analysis were unreasonable; and that the selection decision was flawed for the reasons above, and improper on its face. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued December 24, 1997, sought maintenance services for approximately 139 T-2C and TA-4J aircraft (together with approximately 5 HH-1N and UH-3H helicopters) used by the Chief of Naval Air Training to train undergraduate student pilots in intermediate and advanced "Strike" fighter skills. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 83-84. The RFP anticipated award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a 1-year base period, followed by four 1-year options, to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to government. As amended, the RFP identified three evaluation factors, in descending order of importance: technical, management, and price.