Protest challenging the cancellation of a solicitation and the award of an interim sole-source contract is denied. The agency cancelled the solicitation because its requirement had changed. The protester argued that the changed requirements were not drastic enough to justify a cancellation. But GAO found that the agency’s requirements had significantly changed; the cancellation was reasonable. The protester also objected to the agency’s award of the a interim sole-contract to the incumbent to the cover the time the agency would need to resolicit. GAO, however, found that the sole-source award was appropriate to avoid an interruption in services.
The Navy issued a solicitation to holders of an aircraft maintenance IDIQ contract. The solicitation sought to award a task order for maintenance and logistics support for F-5N/F and F-16A/B aircraft.
After receiving proposals, the Navy awarded the contract to Vertex Aerospace. Disappointed offerors protested. GAO sustained one of the protests. After GAO issued the decision, the Navy announced that it was cancelling the solicitation because its requirements had changed. Specifically, the Navy planned to add more aircraft and service locations.
After announcing the cancellation, the Navy notified offerors of its intent to award an interim sole-source contract to PAE Aviation and Technical Services LLC for maintenance of the F-5N/F aircraft while the agency resolicited its requirements. PAE was the incumbent contractor for those aircraft. The Navy contended that the sole-source award was justified to avoid a break in service to the aircraft.
Vertex filed a protest challenging the cancellation of the solicitation and the award of the sole-source contract to PAE.
Vertex argued that cancellation of the solicitation was unnecessary because the changes to the Navy’s requirements did not exceed what offerors had anticipated. Vertex noted the performance work statement had advised that the agency may add aircraft during the course of performance.
But GAO reasoned that the changes to the Navy’s requirements were more significant than originally anticipated. The solicitation had initially sought services for 57 aircraft at three locations. Now, the Navy needed services for 105 aircraft at five locations. The changes exceeded what offerors could have anticipated under the original solicitation.
Moreover, the Navy had decided to reissue its requirement under two separate IDIQ contracts instead of a single task order. This would likely increase the dollar amount and open the contract the offerors who were not holders of the Navy’s IDIQ contract. GAO found that the Navy had reasonably determined that the cancellation would increase competition.
Aside from the cancellation, Vertex contended that the sole-source award to PAE was not justified because other offerors could have met the requirements without creating unacceptable delay. But GAO found that the Navy had reasonably determined that only PAE, the incumbent contractor, could perform without a break in service that would disable the deployment of Navy and Marine Corps aircraft. Indeed, in its own capability statement, Vertex had stated that it would need several days of transition time after receiving award, which was essentially a concession that it could not perform without at least some delay.
Vertex is represented by J. Alex Ward, W. Jay DeVecchio, James A. Tucker, Alissandra D. Young, and Lyle Hedgecock of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The intervenor, PAE, is represented by Anuj Vohra, Christian N. Curran, and William B. O’Reilly of Crowell & Moring LLP. The agency is represented by Jason B. Nelson, Thomas J. Florip, and Christopher Erly of the Navy. GAO attorneys Alexander O. Levine and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.
