Post-award protest challenging the agency’s technical and past performance evaluations is denied. The agency did not err in (1) assigning the awardee strengths, (2) failing to assign the protester strengths, or (3) finding that the awardee’s past contracts were more relevant than the protester’s.
The Army awarded a contract to DynCorp International LLC to provide aviation field maintenance services. AECOM Management Services, Inc. protested the award, contending the Army had rated DynCorp too highly and AECOM too low under the solicitation’s technical and past performance factors.
AECOM challenged strengths that DynCorp received for proposing an internal deployment center and a trade compliance department. AECOM argued that neither of those features were logically included in the evaluation criteria so AECOM had no reason to propose either feature itself.
But the solicitation required offerors to deploy personnel around the world. DynCorp proposed features benefitted the agency by allowing DynCorp to rapidly station personnel around the world without the personnel having to attend the Army’s CONUS Replacement Center. GAO found that the Army reasonably found that these features exceeded the solicitation’s requirements. The Army had not erred in assigning strengths.
AECOM next complained about DynCorp’s response to one of three scenarios offerors were required to address. DynCorp provided a narrative describing its approach and listed various resources that would be required. DynCorp’s narrative, however, identified four items that were not included on the resource list. AECOM claimed that this discrepancy deserved a significant weakness.
GAO found this argument wanting. The Army had found that DynCorp meaningfully addressed the risks involved. Additionally, the response described DynCorp’s approach in a manner that was consistent with its management plan. The failure to list specific items identified in the response narrative was immaterial.
AECOM further contended that its technical proposal should have been awarded more strengths. AECOM believed it should have received strengths for “its truly global performance” because it had contract field teams located around the world. But AECOM’s field teams were really a government funded program using government equipment under an Air Force contract. The use of those teams was not specific to AECOM and was not a benefit that could be provided at AECOM’s discretion.
Finally, AECOM alleged that the past performance evaluation was flawed because the Army determined that two of DynCorp’s contracts were more relevant that AECOM’s contracts. GAO, however, did not think the past performance evaluation was problematic. DynCorp’s prior contract included performance within the geographic areas covered by the RFP. Moreover, the dollar value on those contracts was several times higher than AECOM’s prior contracts.
AECOM is represented by Richard B. O’Keeffe, Jr., William A. Roberts, III, Gary S. Ward, and Sarah B. Hansen of Wiley Rein LLP. The intervenor, DynCorp is represented by Scott F. Lane, Katherine S. Nucci, Christine R. Couvillon, Timothy Sullivan, Edward W. Gray, and Jayna M. Rust of Thompson Coburn LLP. The agency is represented by Wade L. Brown, Kelly Sledgister-Stehle, and Matthew A. McNease of the U.S. Army. GAO attorneys Glenn G. Wolcott, April Y. Shields and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.