Leidos Innovations Corporation (FOPR-A-MD530)

B-417568.3,B-417568.4 May 11, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Leidos Innovations Corporation, of Reston, Virginia, protests the Department of the Army's issuance of a task order to DynCorp International LLC, pursuant to fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. A-MD530_0001, to provide logistics support services for MD530F rotary wing aircraft in Afghanistan. Leidos protests the agency's failure to comply with various solicitation provisions, including provisions regarding communications with offerors and the evaluation of proposals. 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:  Leidos Innovations Corporation File:  B-417568.3; B-417568.4 Date:  May 11, 2020 Shelly L. Ewald, Esq., and Emily C. Brown, Esq., Watt Tieder Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP, for the protester. Scott F. Lane, Esq., Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Edward W. Gray, Jr., Esq., and Jayna M. Rust, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for the intervenor. Matthew R. Wilson, Esq., Andy K. Hughes, Esq., and Valerie H. Mullaley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is sustained where agency unreasonably excluded portions of offerors’ proposals from consideration and, similarly, excluded the awardee’s responses to questions that were relevant to the agency’s prior assessment of risk in the awardee’s proposed approach, despite the solicitation’s requirements that the excluded information be considered. DECISION   Leidos Innovations Corporation, of Reston, Virginia, protests the Department of the Army’s issuance of a task order to DynCorp International LLC, pursuant to fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. A-MD530_0001, to provide logistics support services for MD530F rotary wing aircraft in Afghanistan.  Leidos protests the agency’s failure to comply with various solicitation provisions, including provisions regarding communications with offerors and the evaluation of proposals.  We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND In April 2018, the agency awarded eight indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts to provide logistics support services for non-standard rotary wing aircraft; Leidos and DynCorp were each awarded one of the IDIQ contracts.  In November 2018, pursuant to the IDIQ contracts and the provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.505, the agency issued FOPR No. A‑MD530_0001, seeking task order proposals to provide logistics support for MD530F rotary wing aircraft,[1] with performance primarily in Afghanistan.[2]  As amended, the solicitation contemplated a 90-day transition period, a 1-year base performance period, and four 1‑year option periods.  AR, Tab 26, FOPR at 9.[3]  Offerors were required to submit technical and cost/price proposals in separate volumes,[4] and the solicitation provided for a best-value tradeoff decision based on the following evaluation factors:  (1) build organic Afghan capability;[5] (2) mobilization;[6] (3) return to service scenarios;[7] and (4) cost/price.[8]  The solicitation provided that the non-cost/price factors were of equal importance and, together, more important than cost/price.  Id. at 10.  The solicitation provided that technical proposals would be comprised of PowerPoint slides and a videotaped oral presentation, stating:   Each offeror will be permitted two and one half (2.5) hours to present its technical approach.  After presentation of the technical volume a one hour break will be taken, followed by a no more than 60 minute question and answer session.[[9]] Id. at 5.  Offerors were instructed that their technical proposals must:  “address how the offeror intends to meet the requirements” and “include sufficient detail for evaluation of the offeror’s capabilities, to include substantiation for stated claims.”[10]  Id. at 3.  Finally, the solicitation advised offerors that the agency would assign a “combined technical/risk rating for [the non-cost/price] factors”[11] and provided that “[e]ach proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the information set forth in the FOPR.”  Id. at 11. In addition to the question and answer (Q&A) sessions following oral presentations, the solicitation provided for “interchanges” between the agency and offerors.[12]  The solicitation explained that such communications would be conducted using “Interchange Notices (INs),” and expressly provided that “[o]fferor responses to INs will be considered in making the source selection decision.” Id.