Sabreliner Corporation, B-284240.2; B-284240.6, March 22, 2000

Sabreliner Corporation, B-284240.2; B-284240.6, March 22, 2000 TITLE: Sabreliner Corporation, B-284240.2; B-284240.6, March 22, 2000 BNUMBER: B-284240.2; B-284240.6 DATE: March 22, 2000 ********************************************************************** Sabreliner Corporation, B-284240.2; B-284240.6, March 22, 2000 Decision Matter of: Sabreliner Corporation File: B-284240.2; B-284240.6 Date: March 22, 2000 Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., and Shlomo D. Katz, Esq., Epstein Becker & Green, for the protester. Ellen D. Washington, Esq., Rosalind J. Woolbright, Esq., and Daniel D. Pangburn, Esq., Naval Air Systems Command, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where protester's proposed price was approximately 25 percent lower than that of the next low offeror, and was based on performing the basic contract requirements using approximately [deleted] labor hours that the government estimated would be required, the agency reasonably determined that protester's proposed price was unrealistic and that award could not be made on the basis of protester's initial proposal. 2. Agency is not required to conduct discussions with offerors where solicitation advised offerors that the agency intended to award a contract on the basis of initial proposals. 3. Agency's intent to obtain required Defense Security Cooperation Agency's (DSCA) determination prior to issuing task orders for foreign military sales customers, rather than prior to award of requirements contract, does not provide a basis to sustain protest, where agency's approach is consistent with the advice and direction of DSCA. DECISION Sabreliner Corporation protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC) on behalf of IMP Group Limited [1] under request for proposals No. N00019-98-R-0011 to provide depot level maintenance services for various Navy and foreign military sales (FMS) customers' helicopters. Sabreliner protests various aspects of the procurement, focusing primarily on the Navy's determination that Sabreliner's proposed price was unrealistic. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on April 22, 1999, sought depot level inspection and maintenance services for U.S. Navy H-3 helicopters and FMS customers' AS-61, MK-1, MK-2 and H-3 helicopters for a 1-year base period with four 1-year option periods. The RFP advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of technical capability, past performance and price, with technical capability and past performance "significantly more important than [p]rice," RFP sect. M-2, and that the Navy intended to award a contract on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions. RFP sect. L-12(f)(4), at 88. Regarding price, the RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price requirements type contract with certain cost reimbursement provisions. Under contract line item (CLIN) 0X01 in RFP sect. B, [2] offerors were required to propose fixed prices for performing "standard depot level maintenance" (SDLM), which consisted of the basic work generally required for all helicopters. [3] Offerors were also required to propose fixed hourly labor rates to perform work that was considered to be "over and above" the SDLM requirements, and which varied depending on the condition of each helicopter. RFP sect. B, CLIN 0X04. For evaluation purposes, the RFP published estimated quantities for various types of "over and above" labor, which were multiplied by each offeror's proposed labor rates. [4] Regarding the evaluation of price proposals, the RFP stated: Price proposals will be evaluated for price realism. This evaluation may include a comparison of the proposed prices to those paid under [the] same or similar DoD contracts. A price proposal which is determined to be unrealistic will be assessed as having high proposal risk. RFP sect. M-2(a). Regarding technical capability, the RFP listed eight equally weighted evaluation subfactors. [5] Offerors were advised that, in evaluating technical capability, the agency would assign both a qualitative rating and a proposal risk rating. [6] With regard to past performance, the RFP stated that the agency would evaluate offerors' experience in reworking "the same or similar rotary wing aircraft" and would assign a performance risk rating based on that experience. Id. Proposals were received by the July 9 due date from five offerors, including Sabreliner and CCC/IMP. Oral presentations and facility visits were conducted between July 29 and August 11. Thereafter the offerors' proposals were evaluated by a technical evaluation team (TET), a past performance evaluation team (PPET) and a price evaluation team (PET).