B-310372.4, Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., May 2, 2008

B-310372.4 May 02, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., protests the terms of solicitation No. FA8105-05-R-0014, under which a contract was awarded to Boeing Aerospace Operations to perform programmed depot maintenance (PDM) for KC-135 aircraft. Pemco asserts that recent developments indicate that the Department of the Air Force's actual requirements regarding PDM for KC-135 aircraft are materially different than the terms of the solicitation under which the offerors recently competed, and maintains that the solicitation should be revised, and the competition reopened, to permit offerors to submit proposals for what Pemco asserts are the Air Force's actual requirements. We dismiss the protest. View Decision B-310372.4, Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., May 2, 2008 Decision Matter of: Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. File: B-310372.4 Date: May 2, 2008 David R. Hazelton, Esq., Roger S. Goldman, Esq., Kyle Jefcoat, Esq., Benjamin Wei, Esq., and Andrew Stein, Esq., Latham & Watkins LLP, for the protester. Brent G. Curtis, Esq., and Kenneth C. Kitzmiller, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Rand L. Allen, Esq., Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., Kara M. Sacilotto, Esq., William J. Grimaldi, Esq., and Nicole P. Wishart, Esq., Wiley Rein, LLP, for The Beoing Company, an intervenor. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency's actual requirements have materially changed from those stated in a solicitation under which a competition was recently conducted is dismissed where agency representative responsible for translating operational requirements into contractual requirements has submitted declaration stating that the agency has not yet made any determination regarding potential changes to the contract requirements. DECISION Pemco Aeroplex, Inc.,[1] protests the terms of solicitation No. FA8105-05-R-0014, under which a contract was awarded to Boeing Aerospace Operations to perform programmed depot maintenance (PDM) for KC-135 aircraft. Pemco asserts that recent developments indicate that the Department of the Air Force's actual requirements regarding PDM for KC-135 aircraft are materially different than the terms of the solicitation under which the offerors recently competed, and maintains that the solicitation should be revised, and the competition reopened, to permit offerors to submit proposals for what Pemco asserts are the Air Force's actual requirements. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND On February 29, 2008, the agency selected Boeing for award of a contract to perform PDM on KC-135 aircraft.[2] On March 11, Pemco filed a protest challenging that source selection decision; the merits of the March 11 protest are currently being considered by this Office, and we will subsequently issue a decision regarding that matter. On March 21, Pemco filed this supplement to its March 11 protest, maintaining that, during program management review meetings (PMRs) conducted by the Air Force on March 11-12,[3] the Air Force –announced two significant, material changes to the KC-135 PDM program -- a change in the expected quantity of aircraft undergoing contractor PDM and a potential change in the PDM cycle.— [4] Pemco Protest, Mar. 21, 2008, at 4. More specifically, with regard to the quantity of aircraft to be serviced under the contract, Pemco notes that the solicitation advised offerors that the agency's –best estimated quantity— (BEQ) of aircraft to be serviced under the contract was 24 per year. Nonetheless, Pemco asserts that, at the recent PMRs, the Air Force –announced . . . an increase in the expected number of aircraft undergoing contractor PDM each year from 24 to 36.—[5] Protest at 4. With regard to Pemco's protest alleging a –potential change in the PDM cycle,— Pemco asserts that, at the PMRs, the Air Force –announced a pilot program to change the PDM schedule of the KC-135 aircraft from the current five year maintenance schedule to a new four/eight year schedule.— Id. at 5. In response to Pemco's March 21 protest, the Air Force submitted a declaration from Col. James J. Nally, Commander, 827th Aircraft Sustainment Group, Tinker Air Force Base, whose responsibilities include –translating operational requirements [for the KC-135 fleet] into contractual requirements.— Declaration of Col. Nally, Mar. 31, 2008, para. 1. With regard to the quantity of aircraft to be serviced, the declaration states: Pemco's assertion that the Air Force's PMR presentation announced a change in the number of aircraft expected to undergo contract PDM is incorrect. The number of PDM aircraft planned for both organic and contract PDM remains unchanged. The total KC-135 PDM aircraft per year (organic and contract) is estimated at 72-78.