B-310359.2, Sherrick Aerospace, January 10, 2008

B-310359.2 Jan 10, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sherrick Aerospace protests the award of a contract to Sierra Lobo, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W31P4Q-06-R-006, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Material Command, for test planning, evaluation and documentation. The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated offerors' technical proposals and past performance. We deny the protest. View Decision B-310359.2, Sherrick Aerospace, January 10, 2008 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: Sherrick Aerospace File: B-310359.2 Date: January 10, 2008 Gary L. Rigney, Esq., Gary L. Rigney Law Office, for the protester. Michael A. Hordell, Esq., Sean P. Bamford, Esq., and Heather Kilgore Weiner, Esq., Pepper Hamilton LLP for Sierra Lobo, Inc., an intervenor. Brian E. Toland, Esq., and Bruce D. Ensor, Esq. Department of the Army, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging evaluation of offerors' proposals is denied where the record supports the reasonableness of the agency's evaluations and source selection decision. 2. Agency's consideration of past performance in its assessment of proposals under a business management evaluation subfactor did not result in prejudice where the record shows that the balance of agency's award rationale still favored the awardee. 3. Protest challenging evaluation of awardee's past performance is denied where agency reasonably considered the past performance of the awardee's proposed subcontractor. DECISION Sherrick Aerospace protests the award of a contract to Sierra Lobo, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W31P4Q-06-R-006, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Material Command, for test planning, evaluation and documentation. The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated offerors' technical proposals and past performance. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP sought test planning and evaluation support services for missile systems, subsystems and components at the United States Army Developmental Test Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, including test plans and procedures development, acquisition program documentation, detailed planning, design, and assessment, and other support activities. Offerors were required to propose labor, materials, transportation, and incidental support for the solicitation requirements. The solicitation anticipated award of a cost plus fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract, with a 1-year base term, and four 1-year options. The competition was restricted to participants in the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program for small, disadvantaged businesses. Offerors were advised that they would be evaluated on the following evaluation factors: business management, technical, past performance risk, and cost. Offerors were to be evaluated under the business management evaluation factor on the basis of charts to be discussed during oral presentations, based on nine subfactors.[1] RFP sect. M-2.2.c(1). For the technical evaluation factor, offerors were to be evaluated on the basis of a whitepaper responding to a sample task for test planning and evaluation of air-to-ground missiles, based on eight subfactors.[2] Id. sect. M-2.2.c(2). Offerors' proposed costs were to be evaluated to determine a most probable cost (MPC) to the government. The RFP stated that award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal provided the –best value— to the government. The RFP stated that the business management and technical evaluation factors were of equal importance, and were more important than past performance and cost combined. Id. sect. M-2.2.a. The agency received nine proposals by the January 9, 2007, due date. The agency convened a technical evaluation committee (TEC), cost area team (CAT), and past performance evaluation group (PPEG) to evaluate offerors' proposals. Each of these evaluation teams produced reports which were referenced and incorporated into the Army's final selection decision, which was approved by the source selection authority (SSA). The agency's final evaluation ratings for Sherrick's and Sierra Lobo's proposals was as follows: SHERRICK SIERRA LOBO BUSINESS MANAGEMENT FACTOR EXCELLENT EXCELLENT 1. Process for assigning workload Excellent Excellent 2. Process to minimize costs Excellent Excellent 3. Proposed personnel Excellent Excellent 4. Organizational structure Good Good 5. Recruitment/retention Excellent Excellent 6. Labor/materiel tracking Excellent Excellent 7.