Sabreliner Corporation, B-290515; B-290515.2; B-290515.3, August 21, 2002

Sabreliner Corporation, B-290515; B-290515.2; B-290515.3, August 21, 2002 TITLE: Sabreliner Corporation, B-290515; B-290515.2; B-290515.3, August 21, 2002 BNUMBER: B-290515; B-290515.2; B-290515.3 DATE: August 21, 2002 ********************************************************************** Sabreliner Corporation, B-290515; B-290515.2; B-290515.3, August 21, 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: Sabreliner Corporation File: B-290515; B-290515.2; B-290515.3 Date: August 21, 2002 Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., Raymond R. Fioravanti, Esq., and Tammy Hopkins, Esq., Epstein Becker & Green, for the protester. Christopher R. Yukins, Esq., Leigh A. Bradley, Esq., and Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., Holland & Knight, for Canadian Commercial Corporation/Orenda Aerospace Corporation, the intervenor. Clarence D. Long, III, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency's evaluation of the protester's and awardee's past performance is unobjectionable where the evaluation was reasonably based and consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. 2. The integrity of the protest process does not permit a protester to argue that the agency improperly interpreted the solicitation and governing regulations as allowing the successful contractor to purchase materials for use in the contract directly from the government where the protester was informed of, shared, and benefited from that interpretation during the procurement process. 3. Agency's determination that the awardee's proposal was acceptable cannot be considered reasonable where the contemporaneous record does not evidence that the agency meaningfully evaluated a relevant and apparently significant section of the awardee's technical proposal, and the agency, in defending the protest, states that its intent is to enter into post-award negotiations with the awardee regarding the protested aspects of the awardee's technical approach that should have been evaluated during the procurement process. DECISION Sabreliner Corporation protests the award of a contract to Canadian Commercial Corporation/Orenda Aerospace Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. F34601-02-R-53859, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for the repair and overhaul of J85 engines and their components.[1] We deny the protest in part and sustain it in part. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract for a base period of 3 years with four 1-year options. The RFP stated that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, based upon the following evaluation factors: technical, past performance, and price. RFP S: M-002(a). The RFP provided that technical proposals would be evaluated only for technical acceptability, and that the technical evaluation factor was comprised of four subfactors--transition, management, personnel, and participation of small disadvantaged business. RFP S: M-002(c). The RFP also stated that *[a]n unacceptable subfactor assessment will result in an overall technical unacceptable rating.* RFP S: M-002(g). The RFP added that, in selecting a proposal for award, *[t]radeoffs [would] only be made between price and past performance,* with past performance being considered significantly more important than price. RFP S: M‑002(b). With regard to the transition subfactor to the technical evaluation factor, the RFP requested that proposals include *a comprehensive plan* detailing how the contractor proposed to meet the requirement that, within the first 24 months of contract performance, the successful contractor *transition from GFM [government furnished materials] to CFM [contractor furnished materials].* RFP S: M-002(c); see RFP S: L.3.2. The RFP added that this transition phase was *not to exceed 24 months.* RFP, app. A, Technical Requirements Document (TRD) S: 3.1.1. Offerors were advised elsewhere that they were *allowed to transition prior to the 24‑month deadline.*[2] Intervenor's Submission (May 30, 2002), exh. 3, Agency Clarifications to RFP (Feb. 5, 2002), response 3. The RFP included a price schedule that included, for each period of the contemplated contract (base, 1st option, 2nd option, etc.), exhibit line items (ELIN) that set forth the engine or other item to be repaired, overhauled, or modified, and a best estimated quantity for each engine or item. RFP, exhs. A-E.