Protest challenging agency’s conduct of exchanges with offerors is sustained. The proposal provided that exchanges may not be conducted with all offerors and that they may not be of the same of the nature and depth. Despite this language, GAO found that the agency had unfairly conducted exchanges. The agency a identified major issue with the awardee’s proposal and allowed the awardee to make proposal revisions. The agency, however, did not inform the protester of the all the issues with its own proposal and did not give the protester a similar chance to revise. The protester also objected to various aspects of the technical and price and evaluations, but GAO rejected those arguments.
The Navy issued a fair opportunity submission request (FOSR) to holders of the agency’s Aircrew and Related Services IDIQ contract. The FOSR sought maintenance and logistics support for the F-5N/F and F-16A/B aircraft. Six offerors, including AECOM Management Services and Vertex Aerospace, submitted proposals. The Navy awarded the contract to Vertex. AECOM protested.
AECOM alleged that the Navy conducted unequal interchanges by allowing Vertex to make significant revisions to its proposal while not providing AECOM with a similar opportunity. During interchanges, the Navy had informed Vertex of a failure to include enough labor hours. Vertex was allowed to revise its proposal, making changes to its small business participation approach, program management approach, and price. Contrastingly, the Navy had merely asked AECOM to clarify an issue with its experience volume but did not allow the company to revise its proposal.
GAO found that Navy had not fairly conducted the interchanges. The FOSR required that the interchanges be fair, but it did not require that all interchanges be of the same nature. While the Navy was permitted some flexibility in conducting the interchanges, GAO did not believe they had been fair. Vertex was provided with an opportunity to make significant changes to its proposal whereas AECOM had never been advised of a confidence decreaser in its program execution approach. This confidence decreaser, which was the only weakness assessed to AECOM’s proposal was the primary reason AECOM was not selected for award. AECOM never received the same opportunity Vertex had to revise its proposal.
AECOM further asserted that the Navy had erroneously determined that Vertex complied with the FOSR small business participation threshold. AECOM alleged that Vertex had proposed to rely on businesses that were not actually small.
GAO, however, found that much of AECOM’s small business participation argument relied on information not included in Vertex’s proposal. The agency was not obligated to go beyond Vertex’s proposal to scrutinize its small business participation. Moreover, GAO noted, compliance with a small business participation goal is generally a matter of contract administration that GAO does not consider.
AECOM objected to a confidence decreaser assigned its proposal for not providing metrics to adjust manpower throughout the execution of the contract. AECOM asserted that the FOSR only required offerors to provide metrics used to determine if adjustments to manpower were necessary to achieve required performance objectives.
But GAO found that the assessment of the confidence decreaser was logically encompassed by the stated evaluation criteria. The FOSR required offerors to include data on the utilization of manpower related metrics to evaluate offerors ability to meet the requirements of the PWS. This criterion put offerors on notice that that they needed to utilize metrics to meet the requirements of the PWS. The PWS, in turn, stated that the contractor should be prepared to add personnel as required. Given that the PWS stated that contractors may need to add personnel during the life of the contract, it was reasonable for the Navy to assess a confidence decreaser based on AECOM’s failure to propose metrics used to adjust manpower throughout the contract’s term.
AECOM contended that it should have received a confidence increaser based on an exclusive teaming arrangement with a supplier of spare parts for aircraft. But GAO determined that the Navy considered the proposed teaming arrangement and reasonably found that it did not appreciably increase the confidence in AECOM’s ability to successfully perform the contract.
AECOM challenged the Navy’s price evaluation alleging that that Vertex had not properly priced a defined number of labor hours for over and above work. GAO found that the Navy reasonably determined that Vertex’s proposed hours complied with the FOSR.
AECOM is represented by Kevin P. Connelly, Kelly E. Buroker, and Jeffrey M. Lowry of Vedder Price, P.C. The intervenor, Vertex, is represented by J. Alex Ward, W. Jay DeVecchio. James A. Tucker, Alissandra D. Young and Lyle F. Hedgecock of Morrison Foerster LLP. The agency is represented by Jason B. Nelson, Deborah N. Borges, Christopher B. Erly, Kristina Hogan, and Sarah M. Erly of the Navy. GAO attorneys Alexander O. Levine and Jennifer Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.