AECOM Management Services, Inc.

B-417639 Sep 11, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights PAE Aviation and Technical Services, LLC, of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to DynCorp International, LLC, of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W58RGZ-16-R-0271, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command--Redstone, for aviation field maintenance support services. PAE challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the technical and cost/price factors, as well as the best-value tradeoff decision. We deny 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:  PAE Aviation and Technical Services, LLC File:  B-417639 Date:  September 11, 2019 Anuj Vohra, Esq., James G. Peyster, Esq., and Stephanie L. Crawford, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Scott F. Lane, Esq., Timothy Sullivan, Esq., Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Edward W. Gray, Jr., Esq., and Jayna M. Rust, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for DynCorp International, LLC, the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., Christopher C. Schwan, Esq., and Alexa B. Bryan, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. April Y. Shields, Esq., Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under the technical and cost/price factors is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION PAE Aviation and Technical Services, LLC, of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to DynCorp International, LLC, of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W58RGZ-16-R-0271, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command--Redstone, for aviation field maintenance support services.  PAE challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under the technical and cost/price factors, as well as the best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on March 9, 2018, for aviation field and sustainment level maintenance services for the geographic region known as Aviation Field Maintenance (AFM) II West.[1]  AR, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) and Memorandum of Law (MOL), July 5, 2019, at 1-2; AR, Tab 2a, RFP.[2]  Specifically, the contractor’s responsibilities would include aviation reset (i.e., restoring aircraft to a fully mission‑capable condition), non-standard repairs with maintenance engineering approval, installation and removal of modification work orders, pre-mobilization and mobilization, and other reimbursable maintenance support for agency customers both within the Continental United States (CONUS) and outside the Continental United States (OCONUS).  COS/MOL at 1-2; AR, Tab 2b, RFP Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 6.  The RFP contemplated the award of a single hybrid fixed-price, time-and-materials, cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF), and cost (no fee) contract for a 1‑year base period and seven 1‑year option periods.  RFP at 2. The RFP provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  (1) technical, (2) past performance, (3) cost/price, and (4) small business participation.[3]  AR, Tab 2g, RFP § M, at 1.  The three non-cost/price factors, combined, were significantly more important than the cost/price factor.  Id.  The RFP also cautioned offerors that award would not necessarily be made to the lowest-priced offeror or the highest technically rated offeror.  Id. Under the technical factor, the RFP required offerors to submit a comprehensive management plan addressing eight areas, including personnel management, which would be evaluated for completeness, feasibility of approach, and risk.  AR, Tab 2e, RFP § L, at 6-8; RFP § M at 2‑3.  The RFP also required offerors to apply their comprehensive management plan to three scenarios,[4] and stated that an offeror’s response to each scenario would be evaluated based in part on “overall interpretation of the PWS requirements and the approach to accomplish each scenario’s effort, identification of appropriate resources, and application of processes and resources to provide timely and cost effective solutions to the presented problems.”[5]  RFP § L at 6‑8; RFP § M at 3. Under the cost/price factor, the RFP required offerors to propose costs/prices for the fixed-price, time-and-materials, and CPFF contract line item numbers (CLINs).  The RFP provided that the agency would perform a cost realism analysis on the CPFF CLINs to evaluate the offeror’s understanding of technical requirements and the risk associated with the offeror’s technical proposal.  RFP § M at 8.  The RF...