Protest challenging agency’s past performance and price reasonableness evaluations is denied. The protester argued that the agency erred in rating one of its past performance references as only relevant instead of very relevant. The agency had found the reference merely relevant because it involved work in Greenland, but the solicitation had asked for work performed in Europe. The protester argued that Greenland has cultural and political ties with Denmark and should be considered part of Europe. GAO rejected this argument, reasoning that the solicitation required references from “within Europe” not from places with cultural and political ties to a part of Europe. The protester also alleged that the agency botched the price reasonableness evaluation by averaging offerors’ prices and comparing each offered price to the average. But GAO found this method of assessing reasonableness unobjectionable.
The Air Force issued a solicitation seeking base operations services in Europe and Africa. The solicitation contemplated award of a single IDIQ contract. The Air Force planned to issue two task orders for services in Turkey and Spain at the time of award.
Three offerors, including Vectrus Systems Corporation and Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) submitted proposals. The Air Force selected KBR for award. While KBR’s price was higher than Vectrus’, the Air Force found that KBR’s advantage under the past performance factor justified the price premium. Vectrus protested.
Vectrus complained that the Air Force had found one of its past performance references relevant when it should have been rated as very relevant. The reference involved the same type logistics work at multiple locations in Greenland. The Air Force had found the contract only relevant because it considered Greenland to be part of North American, not “within Europe” as required by the solicitation. Vectrus argued that Greenland had cultural and political ties with Denmark and thus should be considered part of Europe.
GAO sided with the Air Force. Although Greenland is politically part of Denmark, that does not make it “within Europe.” Vectrus’s interpretation contravened the solicitation, substituting the term “within Europe” with “within the political province of parts of Europe.”
Vectrus contended that the term “within Europe” was meant to encompass more than geographical location. After all, one of the task orders under the contract was to be performed in Turkey, which is geographically located in Asia.
GAO was not persuaded. Regardless of future task orders, the Air Force was bound by the terms of the solicitation, which provided that past performance references had to be from “within Europe or Africa.” If Vectrus’ interpretation were correct then the agency would have been obligated to consider work in Australia or New Zealand—countries with political ties to Europe—which was not supported by the solicitation.
Vectrus also contended that the Air Force disparately evaluated past performance by focusing on negative aspects of its past performance on the incumbent contract while ignoring past performance that reflected poorly on KBR.
GAO didn’t buy it. There were differences in the relevancy and quality of the companies’ past performance records. For Vectrus, the Air Force found that only one of its references was very relevant. KBR, on the other hand, had three very relevant references. Additionally, Vectrus’s CPARs showed several satisfactory ratings while KBR had a greater mix of exceptional and very good ratings. GAO reasoned that Vectrus was cherry-picking isolated incidents in KBR’s record while ignoring the reality that KBR’s performance on its very relevant contracts was materially stronger than Vectrus’.
In addition to these issues, the Air Force had identified two ongoing performance issues for Vectrus that had arisen after the submission of proposals. Vectrus’s proposed corrective action for these issues had not been completed. On the contrary, KBR’s record did not reflect any unresolved issues.
Vectrus further contended that the Air Force inadequately assessed the reasonableness of KBR’s price. Vectrus argued that the Air Force had erred in comparing proposed prices to the average price of the offerors and to an estimate and government evaluated price that were inflated.
GAO did not find the price reasonableness evaluation unreasonable. The solicitation stated that offerors total evaluated prices would be used to assess reasonableness. The record showed that the Air Force compared total prices to the averages of the prices received and considered whether each offeror’s price was within 20 percent of that average.
Vectrus contended that using the average of prices received allowed the unreasonably high prices of offerors other than Vectrus to inflate the average price. GAO noted that Vectrus’ argument simply assumed that its low price should have been the price benchmark. In fact, however, Vectrus’ price was the outlier. There was nothing improper about the agency’s averaging of prices.
Vectrus alleged that a government-prepared total evaluated price was unreliable. GAO, however, noted that in the agency report, the Air Force had thoroughly addressed Vectrus’s arguments about the reliability of the government’s price evaluation. Vectrus had not meaningfully responded to the agency’s arguments, other than asserting that based on its experience as the incumbent, it did not think the government’s prices were reasonable. GAO found that this simply amounted to disagreement with the government, which provided no basis to sustain a protest.
Vectrus is represented by Kevin P. Mullen, Sandeep N. Nandivada, Caitlin Crujido, Lyle F. Hedgecock, and Victoria D. Angle of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The intervenor, KBR, is represented by Brenna D. Duncan, Seth H. Locke, and Alexander O. Canizares of Perkins Coie LLP. The agency is represented by Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz and Jason R. Smith of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Young H. Cho and Laura Eyester participated in the preparation of the decision.
