Northrop Grumman Technical Services, Inc., B-286012; B-286012.2, November 1, 2000

Northrop Grumman Technical Services, Inc., B-286012; B-286012.2, November 1, 2000 TITLE: Northrop Grumman Technical Services, Inc., B-286012; B-286012.2, November 1, 2000 BNUMBER: B-286012; B-286012.2 DATE: November 1, 2000 ********************************************************************** Northrop Grumman Technical Services, Inc., B-286012; B-286012.2, November 1, 2000 Decision Matter of: Northrop Grumman Technical Services, Inc. File: B-286012; B-286012.2 Date: November 1, 2000 Thomas C. Wheeler, Esq., Richard P. Rector, Esq., and Sheila C. Stark, Esq., Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe, for the protester. Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Cheralyn S. Cameron, Esq., DynCorp Technical Services, Inc., an intervenor. Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., Sharon A. Jenks, Esq., John D. Inazu, Esq., and Monica Ceruti, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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 assertion that an agency failed to distinguish between offerors by assigning identical color and risk ratings under the mission capability and risk evaluation factors is denied where the record shows that the ratings assigned were reasonable, and where the selection official was apprised of the distinctions between the proposals and made his selection accordingly. 2. Contention by incumbent contractor that the awardee should have been assessed a risk of workforce disruption because it does not have a collective bargaining agreement with the incumbent workforce is denied where: (1) the agency reasonably concluded that this approach would provide an unfair advantage to the incumbent; (2) the awardee met its legal obligations under the Service Contract Act to match the wage and fringe benefits paid to incumbent employees under the agreement; and (3) the agency reasonably concluded, based on its review of the awardee's proposed approach, that the approach did not present a risk of disruption. DECISION Northrop Grumman Technical Services, Inc. (NG) protests the award of a contract to DynCorp Technical Services, Inc. by the Department of the Air Force pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. F41689-99-R-0028, issued to procure aircraft maintenance and base operating support services at Vance Air Force Base (AFB), Oklahoma. NG argues that the Air Force unreasonably selected DynCorp for award after: (1) failing to distinguish between proposals by giving all three competitive range offerors the same ratings; (2) ignoring the risks associated with DynCorp's lack of a collective bargaining agreement with the Vance AFB employees; and (3) failing to either upwardly adjust DynCorp's price or assess a risk against the company for its lack of escalation of healthcare costs over the life of the contract. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Vance AFB has used a single contractor to perform aircraft maintenance and base operating services (BOS) since 1961. Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 2. In the area of aircraft maintenance, the contractor provides, among other things, ground support, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and repair, and management support of all assigned T-1, T-37 and T-38 aircraft. In the area of BOS, the contractor provides operating services, including: operations and maintenance; fire protection; custodial, engineering, and environmental services; management and maintenance of space and housing; information technology support; transportation; lodging; and aviation operations support. Memorandum of Law at 2. NG has held the contract to perform these services since 1972. The RFP here was issued on October 21, 1999, and anticipated award of a fixed-price, incentive-fee contract for one base year, followed by up to six 1-year options, to the offeror whose proposal was deemed most advantageous to the government. RFP sect.sect. B, M-902. To determine the most advantageous proposal, the RFP identified four evaluation factors: past performance, mission capability, proposal risk and price/cost. RFP sect. M-903. Of these factors, past performance, mission capability, and proposal risk were equal in importance, and combined, were significantly more important than price/cost. Id. Under the past performance evaluation factor there were no subfactors. The RFP advised that an offeror's past performance would receive one of the following six ratings: (1) exceptional/high confidence; (2) very good/significant confidence; (3) satisfactory/confidence; (4) neutral/unknown confidence; (5) marginal/little confidence; and (6) unsatisfactory/no confidence. Id. Under the mission capability factor, there were five subfactors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) performance management; (2) workforce; (3) technical capability; (4) mobilization and changeover; and (5) small business programs participation.