Airwork Limited-Vinnell Corporation (A Joint Venture), B-285247; B-285247.2, August 8, 2000

Airwork Limited-Vinnell Corporation (A Joint Venture), B-285247; B-285247.2, August 8, 2000 TITLE: Airwork Limited-Vinnell Corporation (A Joint Venture), B-285247; B-285247.2, August 8, 2000 BNUMBER: B-285247; B-285247.2 DATE: August 8, 2000 ********************************************************************** Airwork Limited-Vinnell Corporation (A Joint Venture), B-285247; B-285247.2, August 8, 2000 Decision Matter of: Airwork Limited-Vinnell Corporation (A Joint Venture) File: B-285247; B-285247.2 Date: August 8, 2000 John W. Chierichella, Esq., Anne B. Perry, Esq., Catherine E. Pollack, Esq., and Timothy W. Staley, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for the protester. Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Cheralyn S. Cameron, Esq., for DynCorp Technical Services, Inc., an intervenor. Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., Sharon A. Jenks, Esq., and Robert D. M. Allen, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that awardee proposed specific individuals as key personnel that it did not expect, or could not reasonably expect, to use--that is, a "bait and switch," rendering the contract award improper--is denied where awardee obtained agreement from named individuals to accept employment and disclosed in its proposal that it intended to hire as many qualified incumbent employees as possible. 2. Protest by incumbent against agency's past performance evaluation, in which both protester and awardee were rated excellent/high confidence, is denied where protester has not shown how, given awardee's highly-rated relevant past performance, protester's additional, relevant past performance would contribute to better satisfying agency's stated needs so as to warrant a significantly higher rating under the past performance factor. DECISION Airwork Limited-Vinnell Corporation (A Joint Venture) (AWV) protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to DynCorp Technical Services, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. F44650-99-R0007, for War Reserve Materiel (WRM) services in Southwest Asia. AWV, the incumbent contractor, challenges the evaluation of DynCorp's past performance and alleges that DynCorp proposed key personnel it did not intend to use in contract performance. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract, for a base year with 6 option years, for (1) asset receipt, accountability, serviceability, storage, security, periodic inspection and test; (2) maintenance, repair, outload, and reconstitution of prepositioned WRM in several operating locations, including Oman, Qatar and Bahrain; (3) establishment of a mobile repair team to perform scheduled maintenance, inventories, condition sampling, and repair of WRM assets at storage locations where a staff of technical craftsmen is not warranted; and (4) support of scheduled exercises/events by assisting in the deployment of assets/systems from storage sites, setting-up camp at the in-use location, and assisting in camp tear-down and subsequent storage of assets/systems. Performance Work Statement (PWS), Mission Statement. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conformed to the solicitation requirements and represented the best value to the government. The solicitation provided for proposals to be evaluated based on the following four evaluation factors: (1) mission capability (with subfactors for program management/organization structure; receive/ship, store and outload; maintain, repair and reconstitute; and quality control); (2) proposal risk; (3) past performance; and (4) price/cost. The solicitation stated that "[t]he first three factors are equal in value and when combined are significantly more important than the fourth factor," that is, price/cost. RFP sect. M-900, para.para. 3.0, 3.1. Four proposals were received in response to the RFP; all were included in the competitive range. After conducting two rounds of discussions with offerors, the Air Force requested final proposal revisions (FPR). Based on its evaluation of FPRs, the Air Force determined that DynCorp's proposal represented the best value. Although AWV's successful performance as the incumbent WRM contractor for the previous 14 years, and on other relevant operation and maintenance contracts, led the agency to rate its past performance as exceptional/high confidence, the evaluated most probable cost of its proposal ($[DELETED]) was the [DELETED] of any of the proposals. In addition, while AWV's proposal was rated low risk for mission capability and received green/acceptable ratings under the mission capability subfactors for program management/organizational structure and quality control, the proposal was rated only yellow/marginal under the subfactors for receive/ship, store and outload, and for maintain, repair and reconstitute.