B-309752.8, Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc.--Reconsideration, December 20, 2007

B-309752.8 Dec 20, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBRSI) asks that we reconsider our decision, Contingency Mgmt. Group, LLC; IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc., B-309752 et al., Oct. 5, 2007, 2008 CPD para. ___, in which we sustained the protests of the award of contracts to KBRSI, Fluor Intercontinental, Inc., and DynCorp International under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-06-R-0049, issued by the Army Sustainment Command, Department of the Army, for logistics support on a global basis. In its request for reconsideration, KBRSI complains that in sustaining the protests, our Office failed to find competitive prejudice, improperly relied on information outside of the contemporaneous evaluation and source selection record in determining that the agency misunderstood an aspect of KBRSI's technical proposal, misconstrued a government audit report regarding KBRSI's business systems, and improperly recommended that discussions be reopened. We deny the request for reconsideration. We deny the request for reconsideration. View Decision B-309752.8, Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc.--Reconsideration, December 20, 2007 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: Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc.--Reconsideration File: B-309752.8 Date: December 20, 2007 DECISION Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBRSI) asks that we reconsider our decision, Contingency Mgmt. Group, LLC; IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc., B-309752 et al., Oct. 5, 2007, 2008 CPD para. ___, in which we sustained the protests of the award of contracts to KBRSI, Fluor Intercontinental, Inc., and DynCorp International under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-06-R-0049, issued by the Army Sustainment Command, Department of the Army, for logistics support on a global basis. In its request for reconsideration, KBRSI complains that in sustaining the protests, our Office failed to find competitive prejudice, improperly relied on information outside of the contemporaneous evaluation and source selection record in determining that the agency misunderstood an aspect of KBRSI's technical proposal, misconstrued a government audit report regarding KBRSI's business systems, and improperly recommended that discussions be reopened. We deny the request for reconsideration. The acquisition was for Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) Combat Support and Combat Service Support (CS/CSS) augmentation on a global basis. RFP at 14-17. The RFP provided for award of up to three indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contracts for a base period of 1 year with nine 1-year options. Award was to be on a –best value— basis, considering management, past performance, technical (scenario), and cost/price. Id. at 99-102. Among the items evaluated was each offeror's response to a fictional –scenario— that was provided with the RFP. Id. at 94-95. After conducting a comprehensive evaluation, the agency selected Fluor, KBRSI, and DynCorp for award, and two other offerors (Contingency Management Group, LLC, and IAP Worldwide Services, Inc.) protested. Our Office sustained the protest. We found that the agency's evaluation of Fluor's technical proposal was unreasonable and evidenced unequal treatment, given that Fluor's technical approach contained material that expressly differed from the assumptions set forth in the solicitation's scenario, and there was nothing in the contemporaneous evaluation record indicating that the agency considered the proposal's stated assumptions. We also found that the agency misunderstood KBRSI's technical approach to providing equipment, and evaluated this approach in a manner that was inconsistent with its evaluation of another offeror's proposal. We found that the agency misevaluated KBRSI's business systems under the management factor when it failed to adequately consider Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) comments concerning KBRSI's business systems. Finally, we found that the agency did not adequately explain the basis for its evaluation of proposed staffing approaches, specifically what percentage or range of percentages of Host Country Nationals, Third Country Nationals, and Expatriates were acceptable or constituted a weakness or strength in the evaluation. We recommended that the Army reopen discussions, request and review revised proposals, evaluate those submissions consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and make a new source selection.