DynCorp Technical Services LLC, B-284833.3; B-284833.4, July 17, 2001

DynCorp Technical Services LLC, B-284833.3; B-284833.4, July 17, 2001 TITLE: DynCorp Technical Services LLC, B-284833.3; B-284833.4, July 17, 2001 BNUMBER: B-284833.3; B-284833.4 DATE: July 17, 2001 ********************************************************************** DynCorp Technical Services LLC, B-284833.3; B-284833.4, July 17, 2001 Decision Matter of: DynCorp Technical Services LLC File: B-284833.3; B-284833.4 Date: July 17, 2001 Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Charles S. McNeish, Esq., DynCorp Technical Services LLC, for the protester. Sharon A. Jenks, Esq., Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., and Maj. Deborah L. Collins, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging a cost comparison conducted pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76 is sustained, where the agency did not consider the cost of government-furnished material as a common cost item, as it should have, but accepted the in-house cost estimate, which deducted the value of government-furnished material to be supplied to the winner of the competition, and did not adjust the protester's proposal for a cost-reimbursement contract, which did not deduct the value of the government-furnished material. 2. In a negotiated procurement conducted pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76, in which the private-sector offer was to be selected on the basis of a cost/technical tradeoff, and where the solicitation encouraged offerors to exceed the solicitation's minimum performance schedule, the agency improperly failed to ensure that the in-house cost estimate and the protester's offer were based upon the same scope of work and performance standards, where the protester proposed an accelerated performance schedule, which exceeded the minimum requirements and contributed to the protester's selection as the offeror to compete against the agency's most efficient organization (MEO), and the MEO proposed to satisfy the minimum performance schedule requirements. DECISION DynCorp Technical Services LLC protests the decision of the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. F41689-99-R-0025 to retain in-house (rather than contract-out) performance of base operation services at Maxwell Air Force Base and Gunter Annex in Alabama. The decision to retain the services in-house was as a result of a cost comparison pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-76, which compared DynCorp's proposal to perform the work against the technical performance plan and management plan of the agency's Most Efficient Organization (MEO). [1] We sustain the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract (with fixed overhead) for base operation services for a 2-month mobilization period, a 2-month basic period, and 5 option years. [2] RFP sect. B-1 at 3. Notwithstanding the initial 2-month period stated for mobilization of personnel, equipment and material, offerors were not required to fully assume responsibility for the contract work until 90 days after the commencement of the basic period--that is, 30 days into the first option period. [3] RFP, attach. 9, Transition Plan for Maxwell Base Operating Support Functions, at 1. In addition, the RFP stated that it "encourage[d] innovation by potential service providers seeking ways to shorten the scheduled transition time and to minimize problems during the transition" and that "[i]t is the Government's intention to withdraw its workforce as the service provider demonstrates the capability of assuming full responsibility in each service area." Id. Offerors were informed that the RFP was issued as part of a government cost comparison to determine whether accomplishing the specified work under contract or by government performance was more economical. If government performance was determined to be more economical, then no award under the RFP would be made and the solicitation would be canceled. [4] The services sought are in 18 areas: information technology, community services, custodial, emergency management, energy management, engineering services, environmental, transportation, site maintenance, housing, human resources, airfield support, supply, operations and maintenance, resource management, publications and forms management, space management, and marketing and publicity. RFP Performance Requirements Document (PRD). [5] For these service areas, the PRD described performance requirements, workload estimates, and historical material consumption. The PRD also identified facilities, property, and material to be furnished by the government.