Vectrus Systems Corporation (FA5641-19-R-A001)

B-419143,B-419143.2 Dec 23, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Vectrus Systems Corporation, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, challenges the award of a contract to Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc., (KBR), of Houston, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA5641-19-R-A001, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for base operating services in support of United States Air Forces in Europe and United States Air Forces in Africa. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal under the past performance evaluation factor, the agency's evaluation of the awardee's total evaluated price (TEP), and 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:  Vectrus Systems Corporation File:  B-419143; B-419143.2 Date:  December 23, 2020 Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., Sandeep N. Nandivada, Esq., Caitlin Crujido, Esq., Lyle F. Hedgecock, Esq., and Victoria D. Angle, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Brenna D. Duncan, Esq., Seth H. Locke, Esq., and Alexander O. Canizares, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, for Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc., the intervenor. Colonel Patricia  S. Wiegman-Lenz, and Jason R. Smith, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of past performance is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable, equal, and consistent with the stated evaluation factor. 2.  Protest challenging agency’s conclusion that the awardee’s total evaluated price (TEP) was reasonable is denied where the agency based its evaluation on a comparison of the awardee’s TEP to the average TEP of other offerors, and to a government TEP based on historical data.  DECISION Vectrus Systems Corporation, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, challenges the award of a contract to Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc., (KBR), of Houston, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA5641-19-R-A001, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for base operating services in support of United States Air Forces in Europe and United States Air Forces in Africa.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under the past performance evaluation factor, the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s total evaluated price (TEP), and the best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on June 11, 2019 under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for base operating services in Europe and Africa with a 3-month phase-in period, a 5‑year base period and three 1-year option periods.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 39, RFP at 61, 71.[1]  The RFP also contemplated the issuance of two task orders for services in Spain and Turkey at the time of contract award, but stated that additional locations could be added through additional task orders.  RFP at 71; AR, Tab 10, RFP amend. 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 58.  Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following three evaluation factors:  technical, past performance, and price.  RFP at 71.  The technical factor was to be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.[2]  Id.  Under the past performance factor, the government would assess offerors’ recent and relevant present and past work record to determine confidence in each offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed.  Id. at 72.  Price proposals would be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, balance, and realism of the offeror’s TEP.[3]  Id. at 73‑74.  The solicitation advised that the agency expected adequate price competition and would rely on the techniques and procedures described in FAR 15.404-1(b) as the primary means of assessing reasonableness.  Id. at 73.  The solicitation provided that past performance was significantly more important than price.  Id.