ASRC Communications, Ltd.

B-412093.4 Jul 01, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ASRC Communications, Ltd. (ASRC), of Beltsville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Aleut O&M Services LLC, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA2521-13-R-0019, issued by the Department of the Air Force for operations, mission support and facilities/infrastructure maintenance and sustainment at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Cape Canaveral, Florida. ASRC challenges the Air Force's reevaluation of Aleut's proposal and subsequent award decision. We sustain the protest. We sustain the protest. View Decision 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:  ASRC Communications, Ltd. File:  B-412093.4 Date:  July 1, 2016 Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., Ethan E. Marsh, Esq., and James A. Tucker, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP; and Mark J. Nackman, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for the protester. Lee P. Curtis, Esq., Andrew E. Shipley, Esq., Seth Locke, Esq., and Andrew J. Victor, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, for Aleut O&M Services, LLC, the intervenor. Capt. Michael Ahl, and Sarah L. Stanton, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paula J. Haurilesko, Esq., Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of an agency’s reevaluation of proposals is sustained where the record shows that the agency failed to evaluate the awardee’s proposal in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. DECISION ASRC Communications, Ltd. (ASRC), of Beltsville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Aleut O&M Services LLC, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA2521-13-R-0019, issued by the Department of the Air Force for operations, mission support and facilities/infrastructure maintenance and sustainment at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Cape Canaveral, Florida.  ASRC challenges the Air Force’s reevaluation of Aleut’s proposal and subsequent award decision. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, set aside for small businesses, provides for the award of a hybrid, fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-reimbursement type contract to perform various operations, maintenance and engineering support services for facilities and systems at Cape Canaveral for a 5-year base period and a 1-year option period.  RFP § B.  Firms were advised that award would be made on a best-value basis, considering cost/price, technical capability, and technical risk.  The two non-cost/price factors were equal in importance and, when combined, deemed equal in importance to cost/price.  RFP at 187.  Within the technical capability factor, there were four equally-weighted subfactors:  program management, operations and maintenance, mission support, and engineering support. [1]  Id. at 188. In response to the RFP, the Air Force received eight proposals, including those of ASRC and Aleut.  The agency evaluated proposals, engaged in discussions; and solicited, obtained, and evaluated final proposal revisions (FPRs).  On the basis of the evaluation results, the Air Force made award to Aleut as the best-value offeror, concluding that, although the ASRC proposal was superior to the Aleut proposal, that superiority was not worth the cost premium associated with making award to ASRC.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 30, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), at 6. After receiving a debriefing, ASRC filed a protest with our Office.  Among other things, ASRC challenged the Air Force’s evaluation of Aleut’s proposal under the mission support subfactor.  ASRC argued that, in its evaluation of Aleut’s FPR, the Air Force improperly had removed a deficiency assigned to Aleut’s initial proposal for not demonstrating an adequate approach to performance work statement (PWS) § 1.10.  The deficiency concerned the operation and maintenance of the Naval Ordnance Test Unit (NOTU) port/wharf and cranes services, and was based on four specific concerns identified by the evaluators. [2]  ASRC argued that Aleut had addressed only one of the four concerns in its FPR.  We sustained the protest, concluding that the agency unreasonably eliminated the assigned deficiency.  See ASRC Comms., Ltd., B‑412093, B-412093.2, Dec. 23, 2015, 2016 CPD ¶ 36.  Specifically, we concluded that ASRC was correct that three of the four concerns identified by the evaluators in Aleut’s initial proposal remained in its FPR.[3]  Id.