B-310372.2, Pemco Aeroplex, Inc.--Reconsideration, February 1, 2008

B-310372.2 Feb 01, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Department of the Air Force requests reconsideration of our decision in Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., B-310372.2, Dec. 27, 2007, 2007 CPD para. ___, in which we sustained Pemco's protest against the award of a contract to Boeing Aerospace Operations under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8105-05-R-0014, issued by the Air Force for programmed depot maintenance (PDM) for KC-135 aircraft. We deny the request. View Decision B-310372.2, Pemco Aeroplex, Inc.--Reconsideration, February 1, 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: Pemco Aeroplex, Inc.--Reconsideration File: B-310372.2 Date:February 1, 2008 David R. Hazelton, Esq., Roger S. Goldman, Esq., and Kyle R. Jefcoat, Esq., Latham & Watkins, LLP, for the protester. Rand L. Allen, Esq., Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., and Kara M. Sacilotto, Esq., Wiley Rein, LLP, for The Boeing Company, an intervenor. Brent G. Curtis, Esq., and Gerald L. Trepkowski, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of prior decision sustaining protest of a contract award is denied where the request fails to show that the prior decision contains any errors of fact or law, and where the new argument offered in support of the request should have been advanced during the course of the protest. DECISION The Department of the Air Force requests reconsideration of our decision in Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., B-310372.2, Dec. 27, 2007, 2007 CPD para. ___, in which we sustained Pemco's protest against the award of a contract to Boeing Aerospace Operations under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8105-05-R-0014, issued by the Air Force for programmed depot maintenance (PDM) for KC-135 aircraft. We deny the request. The solicitation, originally issued in August 2005 and amended several times, 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.[1] 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 participation. Id. at 79. With regard to evaluation of proposal risk, which was evaluated at the subfactor level of mission capability, the solicitation provided that risk assessments of –low,— –moderate,— or –high— would be made for each of the mission capability subfactors, id. at 83, and stated: The Proposal Risk assessment focuses on the risks and weaknesses associated with an Offeror's proposed approach and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government oversight, as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Id. at 82. Finally, with regard to cost/price, the solicitation contemplated award of a fixed-price contract. Nonetheless, the solicitation required offerors to submit data regarding –labor, fringe benefits, overhead and [general and administrative] rates by year for all labor categories anticipated for use in the performance of this effort,— RFP sect. L.5.1.1, and provided that –evaluation of [the required data] will be used to determine reasonableness and realism of the prices and labor rates proposed as they compare to labor standards, benefits and overhead rates in the marketplace relating to the recruitment and retention of employees.— RFP sect. M.2.7(d). The source selection authority (SSA) concluded that Boeing's proposal was superior with regard to mission capability, Pemco's proposal was superior with regard to past performance, and proposal risk was not a significant discriminator. The SSA also concluded that Boeing's proposal offered the lowest total evaluated price. In our decision, we found that the evaluation record contained no meaningful documentation showing that the agency had considered the effect of [DELETED].