B-296699.3, BAE Technical Services, Inc.--Costs, August 11, 2006

B-296699.3 Aug 11, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights BAE Technical Services, Inc. requests that we recommend reimbursement in the amount of $488,988.40 of the costs of filing and pursuing its protest in BAE Tech. Servs., Inc., B-296699, Oct. 5, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 91. In that decision, we sustained BAE's protest of 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. We recommend that the Air Force reimburse BAE in the amount of $463,902.58 or the costs of filing and pursuing its protest. View Decision B-296699.3, BAE Technical Services, Inc.--Costs, August 11, 2006 Decision Matter of: BAE Technical Services, Inc.--Costs File: B-296699.3 Date: August 11, 2006 Kenneth M. Bruntel, Esq., and Amy E. Laderberg, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for the protester. Michael O'Farrell, 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 1. GAO does not recommend reimbursement of costs incurred in filing and pursuing unsuccessful protest issues where issues are readily severable from successful issues, i.e., are based on different core facts and legal theory. 2. Where information submitted to support claim for reimbursement of costs is not detailed enough to establish how much of the claimed amount was incurred in pursuit of successful, versus unsuccessful, protest issues, use of –page counting— method--estimate based on the number of pages in protester's submissions devoted to particular issues--is reasonable approach to determining costs to be reimbursed. DECISION BAE Technical Services, Inc. requests that we recommend reimbursement''in the amount of $488,988.40''of the costs of filing and pursuing its protest in BAE Tech. Servs., Inc., B-296699, Oct. 5, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 91. In that decision, we sustained BAE's protest of 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. We recommend that the Air Force reimburse BAE in the amount of $463,902.58 or the costs of filing and pursuing its protest. BACKGROUND In its protest, BAE challenged the selection of InDyne's proposal as the –best value— on the basis that the agency's conduct of discussions was improper and its evaluation of proposals under the four evaluation criteria (including mission capability, past performance, proposal risk at the mission capability subfactor level, and cost/price) was unreasonable. Specifically, BAE asserted that the Air Force had: (1) unreasonably failed to credit BAE with strengths under the mission capability evaluation factor; (2) unreasonably inflated InDyne's mission capability ratings; (3) unreasonably downgraded BAE's proposal on account of BAE's use of a business process reengineering program, the Activity Based Costing (ABC) modeling methodology, in developing and substantiating its proposed initiatives to reduce the number of full time equivalent (FTE) personnel and increase efficiency at ETTC, while at the same time unreasonably overlooking InDyne's failure to adequately substantiate its proposed FTE reductions; (4) improperly failed to evaluate the risk mitigation considerations associated with each proposal; (5) conducted unequal discussions by failing to conduct meaningful discussions with respect to BAE's ABC model and substantiation for FTE reductions, while at the same time affording InDyne detailed discussions concerning its proposed staffing; (6) unreasonably assigned BAE (the incumbent contractor) and InDyne equal ratings under the transition subfactor (under the mission capability factor); (7) performed a flawed past performance evaluation that improperly failed to account for InDyne's lack of relevant experience and unreasonably assigned both offerors the same past performance ratings; (8) improperly failed to conduct the required cost realism analysis of InDyne's proposal; (9) improperly made award to InDyne notwithstanding a deficient proposed staffing plan (with the intention of allowing InDyne to correct the deficiency during contract performance); (10) improperly failed to consider a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI) on the part of InDyne; and (11) improperly failed to consider whether InDyne might have a potential unfair competitive advantage (through access to competitively useful inside information) due to its proposal to employ a former senior Eglin Air Force Base official. In our October 5 decision, we sustained BAE's protest on the bases that (1) the agency had applied a more exacting standard in determining that the substantiatio...