B-310372, Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., December 27, 2007

B-310372, Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., December 27, 2007 TITLE: B-310372, Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., December 27, 2007 BNUMBER: B-310372 DATE: December 27, 2007 ************************************************* B-310372, Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., December 27, 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: Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. File: B-310372 Date: December 27, 2007 David R. Hazelton, Esq., Roger S. Goldman, Esq., Kyle R. Jefcoat, Esq., Benjamin Wei, Esq., Brent W. Johnson, Esq., and Jennifer S. Crone, Esq., Latham & Watkins LLP, for the protester. Rand L. Allen, Esq., Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., Kara M. Sacilotto, Esq., and Nicole P. Wishart, Esq., Wiley Rein, LLP, for The Boeing Company, an intervenor. Brent G. Curtis, Esq., Kenneth C. Kitzmiller, Esq., and Gerald L. Trepkowski, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's past performance evaluation is denied where agency considered all reasonably available relevant past performance information and, based on consideration of that information, made confidence assessments that were not unreasonable. 2. Protest that agency was required to assign a "Blue/Exceptional" rating for any mission capability subfactor in which protester's proposal contained an evaluated strength is denied where solicitation stated that proposals containing one or more evaluated strengths could properly receive either "Blue/Exceptional" or "Green/Acceptable" ratings. 3. Where solicitation required that agency perform a price realism analysis and risk assessment, and identified the particular data that would be considered, including [deleted], protest is sustained given the absence of any agency documentation reflecting the required analysis of the awardee's final proposal revisions, which reflected [deleted] that appear to conflict with the agency's internal [deleted] projections. 4. Protest based on alleged conflicts of interest and an alleged violation of procurement integrity provisions is denied where record does not support the protester's allegations. DECISION Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to Boeing Aerospace Operations, Inc. pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8105-05-R-0014 to provide programmed depot maintenance (PDM) for KC-135 aircraft. Pemco maintains that the agency's evaluation of proposals was flawed with regard to past performance, mission capability, and cost/price, and that the agency failed to properly consider alleged organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) and an alleged violation of the procurement integrity provisions of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. sect. 423 (2000). As discussed below, we sustain the protest with regard to the agency's evaluation of cost/price, but we deny the challenges to the agency's evaluation of past performance and mission capability, as well as to alleged OCIs and the alleged violation of procurement integrity provisions.[1] BACKGROUND The solicitation was originally issued in August 2005, and proposals were first submitted in October of that year. At that time, Boeing and Pemco were jointly performing the maintenance for KC-135 aircraft in a prime contractor/subcontractor relationship pursuant to a predecessor contract with the Air Force. In October 2005, Boeing and Pemco submitted a joint proposal responding to the solicitation, proposing to maintain their relationship. In May 2006, the agency substantially reduced the quantities of KC-135 aircraft for which maintenance was being sought under the solicitation.[2] Following that quantity reduction, Boeing terminated the prime contractor/subcontractor relationship between itself and Pemco.[3] In July 2006, the agency amended the solicitation to reflect its revised requirements, and allow Pemco and Boeing to submit separate proposals competing for those requirements. The solicitation provided for award on a "best value" basis, stating that the agency intended to award to the offeror "who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence it will best meet our requirements affordably," and established the following evaluation factors: mission capability, proposal risk, past performance and cost/price.[4] RFP at 78-79. Under the mission capability evaluation factor, the solicitation established five subfactors: depot maintenance, supply chain management, transition, program management, and small business.[5] Id. at 79.