Shearwater Mission Support, LLC

B-416717 Nov 20, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Shearwater Mission Support, LLC (Shearwater) of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to KJS Support Services Joint Venture, LLC (KJS), of Fort Worth, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62473-17-R-3807, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) for base operating support services at the Naval Air Facility (NAF) in El Centro, California. Shearwater protests that the agency engaged in misleading discussions, in part because the discussions relied upon the agency's improper price realism analysis. The protester also challenges various aspects of NAVFAC's evaluation of both Shearwater's and KJS's proposals. 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:  Shearwater Mission Support, LLC File:  B-416717 Date:  November 20, 2018 Keith R. Szeliga, Esq., Adam A. Bartolanzo, Esq., and Shaunna E. Bailey, Esq., Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP; and William K. Walker, Esq., Walker Reausaw, for the protester. Adam K. Lasky, Esq., David Y. Yang, Esq., and Michael J. Schmidt, Esq., Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker, LLP, for KJS Support Services Joint Venture, LLC, the intervenor. Deana Jaeger, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. John Sorrenti, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that the agency engaged in misleading discussions is sustained where the agency’s discussion questions were based on the results of a price realism analysis that was inconsistent with the solicitation, which allowed only a price reasonableness evaluation. DECISION Shearwater Mission Support, LLC (Shearwater) of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to KJS Support Services Joint Venture, LLC (KJS), of Fort Worth, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62473-17-R-3807, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) for base operating support services at the Naval Air Facility (NAF) in El Centro, California.  Shearwater protests that the agency engaged in misleading discussions, in part because the discussions relied upon the agency’s improper price realism analysis.  The protester also challenges various aspects of NAVFAC’s evaluation of both Shearwater’s and KJS’s proposals. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND NAVFAC issued the RFP on September 26, 2017, for the procurement of base support services at the NAF in El Centro.  RFP § C, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1.  Under the RFP, the contractor is to provide all “labor, supervision, management, tools, materials, equipment, facilities, transportation, incidental engineering, and other items necessary” to provide a variety of services at the NAF.  Id.  The PWS identified 19 different technical annexes, each representing a discrete service or area of work that the contractor has to perform at the NAF.[1]  See generally id. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for a 1-year base period and seven 1-year option periods.  RFP at 4-11.  Offerors were advised that a best-value tradeoff process would be used to select the awardee, weighing price and the following five non-price factors:  recent, relevant experience of the firm; technical approach; management approach; safety; and past performance on recent, relevant projects.  Id. § M at 166-169.  When combined, the first four factors were of equal importance to the past performance factor, and all five non-price factors when combined were approximately equal to price.  Id. at 166.  The RFP contemplated award without discussions, but the agency reserved its right to conduct discussions if necessary. With respect to price, the RFP contained a pricing schedule for multiple exhibit line item numbers (ELINs) that identified different services the offerors had to perform under each annex.  See id., Amend. 0013.[2]  For the price proposal, offerors had to submit the ELIN pricing schedule with proposed prices for each ELIN.  Id. § M at 170.  The individual ELIN prices added up to a total price for each annex, and the total prices for each annex summed to the total price for each performance period.  See id., Amend. 0013.  The RFP stated that the agency would evaluate the total price, which consisted of the basic requirements and all option items.  Id.