B-296699, BAE Technical Services, Inc., October 5, 2005

B-296699 Oct 05, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights BAE Technical Services, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to InDyne, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA9200-05-R-0001, for operation and maintenance of the Eglin Test and Training Complex (ETTC) at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. BAE challenges the evaluation of proposals. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-296699, BAE Technical Services, Inc., October 5, 2005 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: BAE Technical Services, Inc. File: B-296699 Date: October 5, 2005 Kenneth M. Bruntel, Esq., Elizabeth W. Newsom, Esq., Amy E. Laderberg, Esq., J. Catherine Kunz, Esq., Edward R. Murray, Esq., and Jenny Kim, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for the protester. Douglas L. Patin, Esq., Robert J. Symon, Esq., and Christyne K. Brennan, Esq., Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, for InDyne, Inc., an intervenor. Michael O'Farrell, Esq., and Isaac Nehus, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is sustained where, under solicitation requiring that offerors substantiate proposed initiatives to reduce staffing, agency applied a more exacting standard in evaluating adequacy of substantiation for protester's proposed initiatives than it did in evaluating awardee's substantiation. DECISION BAE Technical Services, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to InDyne, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA9200-05-R-0001, for operation and maintenance of the Eglin Test and Training Complex (ETTC) at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. BAE challenges the evaluation of proposals. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for a base period of 4 years, with three 2-year option periods, to provide: engineering and technical services in support of research and development, test and evaluation, and training missions, including planning, provisioning, execution, analysis, and reporting; operation and maintenance of the ETTC test and training areas and technical facilities, including radars, range data systems, telemetry systems, frequency control and analysis equipment, an electro-optical evaluation complex, a video facility, photo-optical instrumentation and tracking equipment, facilities to stimulate smart weapons or instrumentation so as to collect data, a climatic laboratory, a simulated test environment for munitions, and explosive test facilities; engineering support for range system design, modification, and configuration; and certain specialized technical support services, including managing and conducting range unexploded ordinance and residue removal and support of munitions operations. Award was to be made on a –best value— basis to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government based on consideration of four evaluation factors: (1) mission capability, including subfactors for program management, capability to provide sufficient agility and efficient range resource scheduling to respond to the full range of potential workload, technical excellence, financial management, ability to seamlessly transition resources and personnel onto the contract and ensure full continuity of test and mission support, and potential to create and ameliorate organizational conflicts of interest; (2) past performance; (3) proposal risk evaluated at the mission capability subfactor level; and (4) cost/price. Mission capability and past performance were of equal importance and each was more important than proposal risk; mission capability, past performance and proposal risk, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price. Of particular importance to the evaluation, the solicitation provided for evaluation''under the program management subfactor of the mission capability evaluation factor''of whether the proposal identified –innovation and efficiency initiatives to be implemented during the life of the contract that would produce reasonable qualitative improvements, cost reductions, or cost avoidance, particularly during the first three years of the contract performance, resulting in benefit to the Government.— RFP sect. M.2.2.1.2. The solicitation provided that the evaluation in this regard would include consideration of whether the initiatives –are well defined and include fully substantiated justifications, trade-offs, investment requirements, expected returns, risk management, and time-phased implementation plans.— RFP sect.