PAE Aviation and Technical Services, LLC (70B02C18R00000063)

B-417704.7,B-417704.8 Jun 08, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights PAE Aviation and Technical Services, LLC, of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to DynCorp International LLC, of Fort Worth, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70B02C18R00000063, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), for national aviation logistics and support. PAE asserts that DynCorp's proposal contained a material misrepresentation, that DynCorp failed to inform CBP of a corporate transaction involving DynCorp, and that CBP unreasonably evaluated offerors' technical and cost proposals. 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-417704.7; B-417704.8 Date:  June 8, 2021 Robert Nichols, Esq., David Bodenheimer, Esq., Sam Van Kopp, Esq., and Andrew Victor, Esq., Nichols Liu LLP, for the protester. Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., Jon W. Burd, Esq., Lindy C. Bathurst, Esq., and Sarah B. Hansen, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for DynCorp International LLC, the intervenor. Melissa K. Erny, Esq., and Stephen C. Edinger, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protester’s contention that the awardee’s proposal contained a material misrepresentation that should have caused the agency to find the proposal ineligible for award is denied where the record does not support a finding that any error in the proposal was material, was relied on by the agency, or had a significant impact on the evaluation. 2.  Challenges to the agency’s evaluation of the technical and cost/price proposals are denied where the evaluations were reasonable and consistent with procurement regulations and the solicitation. 3.  Protest that the agency failed to give meaningful consideration to a corporate transaction involving the awardee is denied where the record provides no basis on which to find that the transaction will have a significant impact on cost or contract performance. DECISION PAE Aviation and Technical Services, LLC, of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to DynCorp International LLC, of Fort Worth, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70B02C18R00000063, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), for national aviation logistics and support.  PAE asserts that DynCorp’s proposal contained a material misrepresentation, that DynCorp failed to inform CBP of a corporate transaction involving DynCorp, and that CBP unreasonably evaluated offerors’ technical and cost proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency has a diverse fleet of aircraft necessary to accomplish its mission of border protection.  CBP requires aircraft maintenance and logistics support to ensure its aircraft are available where and when required.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFP at 7.  The solicitation contemplated the award of a single hybrid (fixed-price and cost-plus-incentive-fee) contract with a 12-month base period, nine 1-year options, and a 6-month option to extend services.  Id. at 30, 44.  Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government, considering--in relative order of importance--the following four factors:  maintenance technical, safety, past performance, and price/cost.[1]  Id. at 88, 94-95.  The maintenance technical factor was significantly more important than the safety and past performance factors; the three non-cost/price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price.  Id. at 95. The RFP required the following six key employees for contract performance:  program manager, site manager, supply supervisor, chief of quality control, maintenance supervisor, and information technology Maximo chief.  Id. at 46.  Under the maintenance technical factor, offerors were to provide resumes for these key personnel and “outline their plan to ensure proposed positions are fully staffed at contract start.”  Id. at 88.  The RFP did not require offerors to identify the current employment status of proposed employees.  See id. Under the safety factor, the agency would evaluate the contractor’s approach to ensuring the highest levels of flight safety are maintained.  Id.