DynCorp International LLC, B-294232; B-294232.2, September 13, 2004

DynCorp International LLC, B-294232; B-294232.2, September 13, 2004 TITLE: DynCorp International LLC, B-294232; B-294232.2, September 13, 2004 BNUMBER: B-294232; B-294232.2 DATE: September 13, 2004 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: DynCorp International LLC File: B-294232; B-294232.2 Date: September 13, 2004 Helaine G. Elderkin, Esq., Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Charles S. McNeish, Esq., for the protester. John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Schaffer, Esq., Richard C. Johnson, Esq., Sophia R. Zetterlund, Esq., Erin R. Karsman, Esq., and Edmund M. Amorosi, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter & Allen, for Aegis Defence Services Limited, an intervenor. Capt. Peter Dan DiPaola, Maj. Peter H. Tran, and Raymond M. Saunders, Esq., Department of the Army, 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 contention that its proposal was unreasonably evaluated and improperly excluded from consideration for award is denied where: the solicitation advised that the agency intended to make award without discussions if possible; the solicitation also advised that a marginal rating could mean that the proposal would be ineligible for award without significant revision; the record shows that the agency reasonably rated the protester*s proposal as marginal, and ineligible for award without significant revision; and the agency reasonably limited its final award decision to the two offerors whose initial proposals were eligible for award as written. 2. Protester lacks the direct economic interest needed to challenge the evaluation of the awardee--as well as the interest needed to challenge the agency*s affirmative determination of the awardee*s responsibility--where the record shows that the protester*s proposal was reasonably considered ineligible for award without discussions, and where, even if the protester*s challenges were sustained, another offeror would be in line for award ahead of the protester. DECISION DynCorp International LLC protests the award of a contract to Aegis Defence Services Limited by the Department of the Army, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W911SO-04-R-0005, issued to procure security services for contractor and government personnel in Iraq. DynCorp challenges the Army*s evaluation of its and Aegis*s proposals, argues that the Army was required to consider its proposal in the cost/technical tradeoff, and contends that Aegis lacked the requisite responsibility to perform this contract due, in part, to certain alleged activities of Aegis*s principal director and largest shareholder. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP here was initially issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), Baghdad, Iraq, on February 13, 2004. Later that month, the CPA transferred responsibility for the contract to the Department of the Army, and on March 4, the Army reissued the solicitation under the above-referenced solicitation number. Specifically, the RFP sought security services, anti-terrorism support and analyses, movement escort services, and close personal protection services. The solicitation contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a 1-year base period, with up to two 1-year options, to the offeror whose proposal *represents the Best Value (Cost Technical Trade-offs) to the Government.* RFP amend. 5, at 42, 50. The solicitation also advised that the agency intended to award without discussions, but reserved the right to hold discussions if necessary. Id. at 50. To determine which proposal offered the best value to the government, the RFP anticipated the use of three evaluation factors: technical/management, past performance, and cost/price. Id. at 50-51. The RFP advised offerors that technical/management would be slightly more important than past performance, and that these two factors combined would be more important than cost/price. Id. at 51. Due to the issues raised in this protest, a detailed recitation of the evaluation subfactors and rating schemes in the RFP is necessary, and is set forth below. With respect to the technical/management evaluation factor, the RFP identified four equally important subfactors: technical/management methodology and responsiveness; the offeror*s response to a hypothetical problem identified in the solicitation (*hypothetical problem*); staffing plan; and personnel qualifications. Id. at 52. Each of these subfactors, as well as the overall factor, was to be assigned a rating of excellent, good, marginal, or unsatisfactory. Of relevance here, the RFP reserved the ratings of *excellent* and *good* for proposals *that can be awarded *as submitted* and [contain] no deficiencies and/or weaknesses.* Id. at 51.