PEMCO World Air Services, B-284240.3; B-284240.4; B-284240.5, March 27, 2000

PEMCO World Air Services, B-284240.3; B-284240.4; B-284240.5, March 27, 2000 TITLE: PEMCO World Air Services, B-284240.3; B-284240.4; B-284240.5, March 27, 2000 BNUMBER: B-284240.3; B-284240.4; B-284240.5 DATE: March 27, 2000 ********************************************************************** PEMCO World Air Services, B-284240.3; B-284240.4; B-284240.5, March 27, 2000 Decision Matter of: PEMCO World Air Services File: B-284240.3; B-284240.4; B-284240.5 Date: March 27, 2000 Ronald K. Henry, Esq., and Larry J. Gusman, Esq., Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, for the protester. Ellen D. Washington, Esq., Rosalind Woolbright, Esq., and Daniel D. Pangburn, Esq., Naval Air Systems Command, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. In evaluating past performance, agency reasonably downgraded incumbent contractor because of specific documented problems attributed to incumbent contractor's performance of predecessor contract. 2. Where solicitation advised offerors that agency intended to award contract on the basis of initial proposals, agency reasonably concluded that award could not be made to protester on the basis of a proposal that contained conflicting information regarding compliance with a material contract requirement. 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 PEMCO World Air Services 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 (RFP) No. N00019-98-R-0011 to provide depot-level maintenance services for various Navy and foreign military sales (FMS) customers' helicopters. PEMCO, the incumbent contractor, protests various aspects of the agency's evaluation of proposals, focusing primarily on the agency's negative assessments of PEMCO's past performance and its ability to perform certain contract requirements. 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 contract is a follow-on contract to one awarded to PEMCO in 1994. As in the predecessor procurement, this RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price, requirements-type contract with certain cost-reimbursement provisions. 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, [2] and fixed hourly labor rates to perform work that was considered to be "over and above" the SDLM requirements. RFP sect. B. The RFP stated 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 Price," RFP sect. M-2, and advised offerors 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. With respect to the evaluation of technical capability, the RFP listed eight equally weighted evaluation factors, [3] and advised offerors that the agency would assign a qualitative rating and a proposal risk rating for each technical evaluation factor. [4] Regarding 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 the agency's assessment of that experience. RFP sect. M-2. Proposals were submitted by five offerors, including PEMCO and CCC/IMP, by the July 9 closing date. 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). PEMCO's proposed price of $53,303,191 was the second highest; its past performance risk was rated "very high"; [5] and its technical capability was rated "unsatisfactory" [6] with "high" [7] risk.