ITT Federal Services International Corporation, B-289863.4; B-289863.6; B-289863.7; B-289863.8, December 16, 2002

ITT Federal Services International Corporation, B-289863.4; B-289863.6; B-289863.7; B-289863.8, December 16, 2002 TITLE: ITT Federal Services International Corporation, B-289863.4; B-289863.6; B-289863.7; B-289863.8, December 16, 2002 BNUMBER: B-289863.4; B-289863.6; B-289863.7; B-289863.8 DATE: December 16, 2002 ********************************************************************** ITT Federal Services International Corporation, B-289863.4; B-289863.6; B-289863.7; B-289863.8, December 16, 2002 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: ITT Federal Services International Corporation File: B-289863.4; B-289863.6; B-289863.7; B-289863.8 Date: December 16, 2002 Kevin Connelly, Esq., and Joseph J. Dyer, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw, for the protester. Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Charles S. McNeish, Esq., for DynCorp International, LLC, an intervenor. Richard C. Bennett, Esq., and Nancy J. Williams, 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 Protest challenging agency's cost realism evaluation is sustained where record shows that evaluation contained errors that, if corrected, could significantly reduce the amount of awardee's cost advantage, and also could affect the agency's technical evaluation of proposals, so that the award decision could be different. DECISION ITT Federal Services International Corporation protests the award of a contract to DynCorp International, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA78-01-R-0016, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to acquire base operations and security services at Camp As Sayliyah, Qatar. ITT argues that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND This is the second award decision that has been protested to our Office. In an earlier decision, DynCorp Int'l, LLC, B-289863, B-289863.2, May 13, 2002, 2002 CPD P: 83, aff'd, DynCorp Int'l, LLC--Recon., B-289863.3, July 1, 2002, we sustained a protest filed by DynCorp against the award of this contract to ITT, finding that the agency had made errors in evaluating proposals and selecting ITT for award. We recommended that the agency amend the solicitation, obtain and evaluate revised proposals and make a new source selection decision, and terminate the contract awarded to ITT for the convenience of the government should the agency conclude that a firm other than ITT is in line for award. The agency implemented our recommendation: it amended the RFP, sought revised proposals and made a new source selection, awarding the contract to DynCorp. The solicitation, as amended after DynCorp's earlier protest, contemplated the award of a cost-reimbursement contract and provided that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of four equally-weighted, non-cost factors: management capability, technical capability, experience documentation and past performance documentation. RFP, Amendment No. 6, at 3-7. Proposals were assigned adjectival ratings of either excellent, good, satisfactory, marginal or unsatisfactory for each of the non-cost factors. As for cost, the RFP provided that proposed costs would be evaluated for reasonableness, completeness and realism. Id. at 7. Finally, the solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate performance risk in connection with all cost and non-cost evaluation areas. Id. at 3. For source selection purposes, the RFP stated that award would be made to the firm whose proposal represented the best overall value to the government, considering all of the cost and non-cost evaluation criteria, with non-cost considerations collectively being more important than cost-related considerations. Id. at 3. After receiving and evaluating the revised proposals, the agency assigned ratings to the ITT and DynCorp proposals as follows: +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Firm |Management |Technical |Experience|Past Perf.|Evaluated | | |Capability |Capability |Doc. |Doc.