DynCorp

DynCorp TITLE: DynCorp International LLC, B-289863; B-289863.2, October 6, 2000 BNUMBER: B-289863; B-289863.2 DATE: October 6, 2000 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: DynCorp International LLC File: B-289863; B-289863.2 Date: May 13, 2002 Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Charles S. McNeish, Esq., DynCorp, for the protester. C. Stanley Dees, Esq., Alison L. Doyle, Esq., and David M. Glynn, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, and Peter H. Johnson, Esq., ITT Defense, for ITT Federal Services International Corporation, an intervenor. Richard C. Bennett, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest is sustained where source selection authority discounted weaknesses in awardee's proposal identified by technical and cost evaluators, and record does not establish that her disagreement had a rational basis. 2. Protest that agency improperly assigned high performance risk rating to protester's proposal based on potential cost growth, while not assigning a similar rating to awardee's proposal, is sustained where agency had concern about cost growth as to both proposals. DECISION DynCorp International LLC protests the award of a contract to ITT Federal Services International Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA78-01-R-0016, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to obtain base operation services at Camp As Sayliyah, in Qatar. DynCorp maintains that the agency misevaluated cost and technical proposals in making its award decision. We sustain the protest. The RFP sought proposals to provide an array of support services on a cost reimbursable basis for a base year, with four 1-year options. Offerors were advised that the agency would make award to the firm submitting the proposal deemed to offer the best overall value to the government, in light of price and non-price considerations. The RFP included four non-price elements (equal in importance): management capability, technical capability, experience and past performance. (Each of the elements included subelements that are not relevant here.) The RFP advised that adjectival ratings of outstanding, excellent, satisfactory, marginal, unsatisfactory or unacceptable would be assigned for each subelement and element, and that an overall adjectival rating would be assigned to each proposal. As for cost, the RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated to determine cost reasonableness, cost realism, and completeness of the proposed costs (that is, that every required element of cost has been addressed in the proposal). With respect to the completeness element, the RFP included a cost breakdown sheet that specified cost elements for each of the various contract line items (for example, direct labor, indirect rates, materials, equipment and supplies). Offerors were advised that they were not required to use the cost breakdown sheet included with the RFP, but were nonetheless required to provide the information called for. Finally, the RFP provided that the agency would assign a risk rating to each proposal based on technical and cost considerations. In response to the solicitation, the agency received five proposals, including those submitted by DynCorp and ITT. DynCorp's proposal received excellent ratings from the technical evaluation team (TET) under all four evaluation factors. Initial Documents (ID), exh. 2A at 5-8.[1] The TET identified a total of 18 strengths in the DynCorp offer; it found no weaknesses or risks. ID, exh. 2A, DynCorp Consensus Evaluation Worksheet, at 1-2. ITT's proposal received satisfactory ratings in the management capability and technical capability areas, an excellent rating in the experience area, and an outstanding rating in the past performance area. ID, exh. 2A, at 11-13. The TET identified a total of eight strengths, six weaknesses and one risk consideration. ID, exh. 2A, ITT Consensus Evaluation Worksheet, at 1-2. The evaluators were concerned primarily with ITT's proposed staffing levels, which they described as ?minimally satisfactory.? Id. The TET further noted that ITT did not seem to understand the number of people required to meet the contract's requirements, and apparently misunderstood the overall scope of work; that, while the firm's proposed staffing approach might work, it would result in lower levels of response and services; and that there was a particular concern with the adequacy of the staffing in the security area of the requirement. Id.