Survice Engineering Company

B-414519 Jul 05, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The SURVICE Engineering Company, LLC (SEC), of Belcamp, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Engineering Research and Consulting, Inc. (ERC), of Huntsville, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA2486-16-R-0065, for engineering, program management, and administrative services in support of the Air Force SEEK EAGLE Office (AFSEO), Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Contracting Officer's Statement of Fact (COSF) at 2, 3; RFP. The protester alleges that the agency failed to evaluate offerors' proposed compensation plans in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.222-46 and the solicitation. SEC also contends that the agency applied the solicitation's evaluation factors unequally and applied unstated evaluation criteria. Finally SEC alleges that agency was required to credit SEC in the technical evaluation for outside past performance information that was not incorporated into SECs technical proposal. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. 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:  SURVICE Engineering Company, LLC File:  B-414519 Date:  July 5, 2017 Donald J. Walsh, Esq., Wright, Constable & Skeen, LLP, for the protester. Robert J. Symon, Esq., Elizabeth A. Ferrell, Esq., Aron C. Beezley, Esq., and Lisa A. Markman, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the intervenor. Christopher S. Cole, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Stephanie B. Magnell, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of awardee’s professional compensation plan is sustained where the record does not demonstrate that the agency conducted an evaluation in accordance with the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation provision 52.222-46. 2.  Protest that agency misevaluated proposals is sustained where the agency evaluated proposals unequally and applied unstated evaluation criteria.  3.  Protest alleging that the agency’s evaluation is flawed because the agency did not use certain past performance information to assess the protester’s proposal under the solicitation’s technical capability and risk evaluation factor is denied, where the agency was not required to look to past performance evaluations to assess the offeror’s technical proposal.  DECISION The SURVICE Engineering Company, LLC (SEC), of Belcamp, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Engineering Research and Consulting, Inc. (ERC), of Huntsville, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA2486-16-R-0065, for engineering, program management, and administrative services in support of the Air Force SEEK EAGLE Office (AFSEO), Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.[1]  Contracting Officer’s Statement of Fact (COSF) at 2, 3; RFP.  The protester alleges that the agency failed to evaluate offerors’ proposed compensation plans in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.222-46 and the solicitation.  SEC also contends that the agency applied the solicitation’s evaluation factors unequally and applied unstated evaluation criteria.  Finally SEC alleges that agency was required to credit SEC in the technical evaluation for outside past performance information that was not incorporated into SECs technical proposal. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part.  BACKGROUND The Air Force issued the SEEK EAGLE Modeling Analysis, and Tools Support (SEMATS 2) RFP on December 2, 2015, in accordance with the procedures under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, and subsequently amended the solicitation five times.[2]  MOL at 4; COSF at 7-10.  The agency anticipated award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, fixed-price[3] contract to the offeror submitting the proposal representing the best value to the agency, taking into account three evaluation factors in descending order of importance:  technical capability and risk, past performance, and cost/price.  RFP at 174-175.[4]  The technical/risk factor comprised four equally-important subfactors:  (1) aircraft-stores compatibility engineering analysis and support; (2) technical workforce management; (3) organizational conflict of interest; and (4) program management.  Id.  The agency intended to assign strengths and weaknesses to offerors’ technical proposals.  As relevant to this protest, the solicitation defined a strength as: An element of the proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.