Amentum Services, Inc. (N6893622FOSRNTWP)

B-421603,B-421603.2,B-421603.3 Jul 17, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Amentum Services, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Vertex Aerospace LLC, of Madison, Missouri, under fair opportunity submission request (FOSR) No. N6893622FOSRNTWP, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Test Wing Pacific (NTWP), for aircraft maintenance, modification, and logistics support services at Naval Air Station Point Mugu, California and Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection 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: Amentum Services, Inc. File: B-421603; B-421603.2; B-421603.3 Date: July 17, 2023 Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., Jon W. Burd, Esq., Sarah B. Hansen, Esq., and Teresita A. Regelbrugge, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. J. Alex Ward, Esq., W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., Lyle F. Hedgecock, Esq., and Markus G. Speidel, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for Vertex Aerospace LLC, the intervenor. Andre E. Long, Esq., and Jenniffer Pineda, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of offerors’ past performance is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 2. Protest challenging cost realism analysis is denied where agency analyzed all major cost elements and relied on recommendations by the Defense Contract Audit Agency to reasonably determine whether proposed costs were realistic for the work to be performed. 3. Protest alleging misleading discussions is denied where, notwithstanding apparent errors, the protester failed to demonstrate competitive prejudice. DECISION Amentum Services, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Vertex Aerospace LLC, of Madison, Missouri, under fair opportunity submission request (FOSR) No. N6893622FOSRNTWP, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Test Wing Pacific (NTWP), for aircraft maintenance, modification, and logistics support services at Naval Air Station Point Mugu, California and Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of proposals and source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 26, 2022, the Navy issued the FOSR to firms holding contracts under the Naval Air Systems Command Contracted Maintenance, Modification, Aircrew, and Related Services multiple‑award indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1c, FOSR at 1; Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 4.[1] The FOSR contemplated the issuance of a task order, with cost-reimbursable, cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee, and other direct cost line items, for aircraft maintenance, modification, and logistics services in support of the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Divisions test and evaluation programs at Naval Air Station Point Mugu, California and Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California. FOSR at 4. The FOSR provided for the issuance of the task order on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering program execution, past performance, and cost.[2] Id. at 47. The solicitation explained that the non-cost factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost, but did not clarify the relative importance of each individual factor. Id. Under the program execution factor, the FOSR instructed the agency to evaluate each offeror’s proposed staffing approach, management approach, task order executability, and any proposed corporate restructure. Id. at 48. The FOSR specified that the agency would perform its evaluation by documenting findings that an aspect of a proposal either increased or decreased the agency’s confidence that the offeror would successfully perform the required effort. Id. at 48, 52. The FOSR provided that the agency would assign each proposal an overall confidence assessment rating under the factor of either substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, or no confidence. Id. The FOSR instructed offerors to, as part of their staffing approach, propose fifteen enumerated key personnel. Id. at 21. Proposals were required to include resumes showing that the proposed key personnel met all of the FOSR’s experience requirements. Id. As relevant here, the FOSR required offerors to propose two ordnance managers as key personnel. Id. at 21‑22.